Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For South Norfolk, in the room of Peter Arthur David Baker, Esquire, M.C., expelled this House.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Hostel, Hawarden (Closure)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Labour if he will reconsider the decision to close the hostel at Hawarden, as it is in an area in which private lodgings are particularly scarce.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Watkinson): No, Sir. I recognise with regret, that there will be some disturbance caused to workers and to employers, but a number of the employers concerned are making special efforts to find lodgings for their workers affected by the closure and the local officers of my Department are doing all they can to help. It is our experience that by such means more lodgings are usually found when a hostel is closed than could be foreseen.

Mrs. White: If this effort to find lodgings fails, will not the Minister keep this decision open for a little while? Is he not aware that a large number of foreign workers—Poles and Italians—are concerned, that a great many women in this area go out to work, and that it will be a serious matter to find accommodation for about 120 workers, most of whom are foreign?

Mr. Watkinson: I understand the difficulties, but our difficulty is that these hostels are losing an average of £1 per

week per member of the hostel, and that is a very large sum of money. We can only consider deferring this decision if some firm offer is made by the local authority or by a group of businessmen which may lead to negotiations enabling us to dispose of them in that way.

Mr. Robens: It may well be the case that £1 per head per week is lost on these hostels, but does the Minister not recognise the value of the productivity of the workers concerned, and that, if hostels are not provided, these workers may be lost to the area?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a proper point, but the difficulty is that this is to some extent subsidising firms which have workers in these hostels. I hope that the firms themselves may make some offer to take over the hostels, and if they do we will do all that we can to assist them.

Miners, Rugeley (Rents)

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a trade dispute threatens between miners and their employers in the Rugeley, Staffordshire, area; and what action he intends to take.

Mr. Watkinson: I am not aware of a trade dispute affecting miners in the Rugeley area. It may be that the hon. Member has in mind a matter affecting that area to which reference has been made in the local Press. This matter is one for the National Coal Board, and I understand that the hon. Member has recently written to the National Coal Board about it.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while there are severe and, some may think, undue restrictions about Questions regarding the activities of nationalised industries, it is always the responsibility of Members of Parliament to try to forestall trouble? Secondly, would he take into account the opinion of people concerned locally that there is a dispute about the housing association rentals which are subject to agreement between the local authorities, and that this is causing dissatisfaction?

Mr. Watkinson: That may be, but unless a dispute is brought officially to the notice of my Ministry I cannot officially take any direct interest in it.

Advisory Committee on Industrial Health

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the Advisory Committee on Industrial Health will have all the powers and resources necessary to enable it to carry out an effective survey, so as to make clear the main deficiencies of the existing health provisions in industry.

Mr. Watkinson: The Committee will be an advisory body. The scheme for the development of industrial health services, including any necessary surveys, will be carried out through Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate, which possesses wide powers under the Factories Acts.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Minister satisfied that they have power to inspect all the conditions in some of the small factories where it is known that there is the most need of that at the present time?

Mr. Watkinson: The powers are very wide. They include,
at all reasonable times, by night and day, right of entry into, inspection and examination of a factory and every part thereof. …

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the definition does not include a wide range of industrial processes outside the Factories Acts?

Mr. Watkinson: The Committee which we have set up is dealing with premises covered by the Factories Acts.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Labour if he has now completed his discussions with interested bodies regarding the composition of the Advisory Committee on Industrial Health; and whether he has now agreed to the inclusion of persons with experience of local government work in this field.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. Further requests for membership of the Committee have been received, and the whole subject is still under consideration.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will not the Minister now decide to give some place on this Committee to public health authorities, in view of the heavy responsibilities that they already bear? Is it not quite fantastic to set up a Committee to advise the Minister without including any representatives of this very important section?

Mr. Watkinson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that local authorities, while very important in this field, have only a limited responsibility in the field of industrial health. But that does not prejudge the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend, which has yet to be taken.

Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed men, women, youths and girls in the borough of Leyton for the first six months of 1954 and for 1953; the average period of their unemployment; and how many in those periods were over 60 years of age.

Mr. Watkinson: I will send the available information to the hon. Member.

Domestic Service (Foreign Workers)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour approximately how many girls and women of foreign nationality are now employed in domestic service in this country; the average annual number of changes of employer; and to what extent over-long hours of work and underpayment exists among this class of employee.

Mr. Watkinson: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Sorensen: But the Minister will agree that this information is necessary? Could not something be done to acquire it for the benefit of social workers and others interested, in view of the fact that one knows that some girls are working very long hours?

Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid that it is quite impossible to get accurate information of this kind, because it covers all types of domestic servants, including those employed in hospitals and other institutions.

Mr. Robens: Would it not be appropriate if these girls joined their respective trade unions and allowed the unions to deal with the question of working hours?

Mr. Watkinson: I should think that that would be a very satisfactory solution.

Mr. H. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend find that the girls coming into this country for domestic service are keeping


to the conditions on which they are allowed entry permits?

Mr. Watkinson: On the whole; but in the case of a girl who does not keep to the conditions of entry, consideration is immediately given to withdrawing the permit.

Mr. Sorensen: Is an invitation extended to these girls to join a trade union, and is information given with respect to the trade union which they should join?

Mr. Watkinson: That is not a matter for the Ministry of Labour.

Colonial Immigrants

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has of the number of colonial men and women who have come to this country during the past two years who have been settled in regular employment; how many are now unemployed; and the average period elapsing before new colonial registrants secure employment.

Mr. Watkinson: The figures desired by the hon. Member are not immediately available, but I am making inquiries to see how far an estimate can be made.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has not the Minister provided this information to the inter-Departmental inquiry which is supposed to be investigating the problems arising from this immigration? Can the Minister state what part his Ministry is taking in these discussions, and what the result is likely to be?

Mr. Watkinson: As I explained to the House last week, so far we have not kept these figures, because we do not make any differentiation on the basis of the colour of the people who are dealt with at employment exchanges. We are looking at the system to see if there is some way of making a record of this without putting up a colour bar.

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Labour by how many points the cost-of-living index has been increased through the rise, since 1951, in the retail price of popular brands of tea, from 3s. 2d. to 7s. 6d. per lb.

Mr. Watkinson: While I do not in any way accept the prices of popular brands

of tea quoted by the hon. Member, such increases as have taken place between October, 1951, and November, 1954, have raised the all-items index by just over one point.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that tea now costs 4d. a cup, which is 1s. a pint, and will he ease his own problems by urging his colleague to remove the tax on beer, so that at least one comforting beverage will be available to people at prices which they can afford?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that is a Question which had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Labour the causes of the rise of 5 per cent. in the Retail Food Price Index from October, 1953, to October, 1954.

Mr. Watkinson: The increase of 5 per cent. in the Retail Food Price Index between October, 1953, and October, 1954, was due mainly to increases in the prices of meat, tea, tomatoes, butter, fish and cocoa. There were slight increases in the prices of certain other foods. The effect of these increases was partly offset by price reductions on a few other commodities.

Mr. Jeger: We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his Department are no more than recording angels of the price index, but can he give the House any indication when he intends to plot the graph downwards instead of upwards?

Mr. Watkinson: I think that the answer is one which should give both sides of this Question. In the same period that the price index of food went up 5 per cent. the wages index for men went up by approximately the same amount.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Minister tell us why, at a time when farmers are getting less for their produce, the housewife is paying more for it?

Mr. Watkinson: Because some things go up in price and others go down, and some are imported and some are grown at home.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Exports (Encouragement)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage the exports of Scottish industry.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): In matters of special interest to Scottish exports I keep in close touch with the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for the encouragement of the exports of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Sir D. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a United Kingdom mission to Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Sudan, will shortly leave—at the expense of the taxpayer—to promote and develop industry in those countries and to obtain orders for British exports, but that Scottish industry is not represented on that 11-man delegation? Is not that quite wrong, having regard to the fact that Scottish industries play an important part in developing these countries with capital goods such as steamships, locomotives and engineering products of all kinds?

Mr. Stuart: The trades, on a United Kingdom basis, may make recommendations as to the representatives they wish to send. As the President of the Board of Trade said, on 16th December, it would not be practicable to organise trade missions on a geographical as well as a trade basis, without making them unwieldy.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland is particularly concerned with heavy industries, and can he assure the House that he is consulted before these trade missions are finally decided upon?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the trades concerned are consulted, and I am certainly most anxious to see that Scotland is always adequately represented.

Local Medical Committees

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible, under his regulations, for setting up the local medical committees; and their purpose in the administration of the general medical service.

Mr. J. Stuart: Local medical committees are formed by the medical profession themselves, and are accorded statutory recognition by the Secretary of State. They appoint medical members to the executive council; they must be consulted by the council on certain specified

matters, and are normally consulted on other matters, affecting the general medical services; and they have a number of specific functions under the Regulations, including particularly the investigation of excessive prescribing.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State has intimated his responsibility for these local medical committees, may I ask if he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction at the manner in which many of them are carrying out the functions assigned to them, and that they are tending by their attitude to limit the right of a doctor to give the type of treatment which he considers necessary for a patient? In view of the assumption of this kind of judicial attitude, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a doctor ought to be represented when he appears before one of these committees?

Mr. Stuart: I should like to examine the point which the hon. Member has raised, as we do not, of course, wish any dictatorial attitude to be adopted by these committees. I thought that they were working quite well, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the interviews to which a doctor was called started by the chairman informing the doctor that he need not worry because on that occasion he would not be fined? Is that a proper attitude to take at an interview of that nature?

Mr. Stuart: I was not aware of that, but if the hon. Member will give me details, I will gladly look into it.

Roads (Transfer of Powers)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the power to vary the rate of grants to roads of different classes and to give grants to roads which are not now eligible in Scotland is being included among the powers to be transferred to him from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation.

Mr. J. Stuart: It is proposed that all the powers of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in relation to the maintenance and improvement of Scottish roads should be transferred.

Mr. Grimond: Does not that mean that the Secretary of State will have the power to vary the rate of grant? Will he have the power to deal with the very serious problems of unclassified roads in the Highland area?

Mr. Stuart: So far as unclassified roads are concerned, I shall have the power to do whatever I am permitted to do. [Laughter.] I said that all the functions of my right hon. Friend will be transferred. But as to the rates of grant, I cannot say that I can vary the 75 per cent. on Class I roads or the 60 per cent. on Class II roads unless these rates are varied throughout the country.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will do all that he is permitted to do, but who grants him permission?

Mr. Stuart: When the powers are transferred from the Minister of Transport to me I shall take them over.

Mr. Callaghan: On the question of reclassification, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot vary the rate of grant, but will the transfer of powers enable him to reclassify roads as Class I, II, or III roads, respectively?

Mr. Stuart: In so far as powers exist whereby roads are periodically altered and moved up to Class I, for example, those powers will continue under me.

Agricultural Drainage (Consultations)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to introduce legislation to deal with the recurring problem of flooding in many areas in Scotland.

Mr. Malcolm Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to enable the Government to undertake greater responsibility for action in cases of flooding in rural areas.

Mr. J. Stuart: As the hon. Members are aware, discussions on the agricultural drainage problem have taken place with the interested organisations, but I regret that so far it has not been possible to devise an acceptable solution.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that I have been receiving that

answer ever since I entered the House in 1950? Is he also aware that this problem of flooding applies to more than purely agricultural areas, and that homes are being flooded in Scotland each time we have severe rain? If he cannot introduce legislation, can he not deal with special cases on their merits, to avoid extreme hardship taking place each winter in Scotland, with nothing being done about it?

Mr. Stuart: I shall be very glad to help in cases of extreme hardship. I believe that local authorities already do this. As I said in my answer, I regret that a solution has not been reached which would enable me to introduce legislation. I am sorry that the reply which the hon. Member has received has always been to that effect, but that does not mean that it is an inaccurate reply.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this question has caused real disquiet? Would he consider making a statement at some time, indicating where the difficulties of reaching agreement lie, so that we can argue the whole question out and try to contribute to a general solution of this matter?

Mr. Stuart: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Winter Fodder

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to avoid a steep rise in the cost of winter feed, in view of the flooding, resulting in the loss of crops.

Mr. J. Stuart: There are local shortages of hay which have resulted in higher prices, but this is unavoidable, and has happened before. Despite the bad harvest, however, the quantity of winter fodder on farms seems likely to be generally adequate, although the quality will often be low.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the Secretary of State convinced, on the information that he has, that some controls are necessary to avoid a steep rise in the cost of winter feed? Is he aware that many tenant farmers are already having to get rid of store cattle because of their inability to feed them over the winter? Will he again examine this matter with a view to making certain that this difficulty, which


has not been budgeted for by the farmers, will be covered? There has been a great loss of crops in certain areas in Scotland.

Mr. Stuart: The hon. Member may recollect that the Minister of Agriculture made a statement on 16th December, in which he said that the Government had decided that where the failure to harvest the grain is not due to bad husbandry or negligence by the grower, the acreage claimed by the grower but not harvested as grain will be eligible for deficiency payment. This will be of material help in the problem.

Thoracic Operations (Waiting Time)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the greatest time that a patient has had to wait in Lanarkshire for a major thoracic operation; and how many have had to wait this period.

Mr. J. Stuart: No tuberculous patient has been on the present waiting list for more than six months, except one whose operation was postponed at her own request and who has now been waiting eight months. Five patients have been waiting six months, three of whom have had their operations postponed on medical grounds.

Miss Herbison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that six months is a very long time for any patient to wait—especially one suffering from tuberculosis, which has very depressive effects? To wait such a long time for an operation is very bad. What steps does he or his Department propose to take to cut down this waiting time?

Mr. Stuart: The waiting list in the region has been reduced from 404 in May, 1954, to 172, which shows that steps have been taken. In Lanarkshire arrangements are being made to transfer a number of patients from Hairmyres to a ward in Wester Moffat Hospital, Airdrie, which is at present being redecorated.

Housing (Certificates of Disrepair)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require local authorities to make quarterly

returns showing the number of applications for certificates of disrepair under the Housing Acts; the number granted and the number refused; and the number of applications received from landlords for the revocation of such certificates, the number granted and the number refused.

Mr. J. Stuart: I propose to ask local authorities in due course for a return.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer will give great satisfaction to those of us who are greatly concerned at the large number of certificates of disrepair being issued by local authorities on quite trivial grounds?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Stuart: My hon. Friend asked me if I was aware that my answer would give satisfaction, and I am very glad to hear that it will.

Forth Road Bridge

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement concerning recent representations made to him about a Forth road bridge.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Forth Road Bridge Joint Board communicated to me an offer by certain financial interests to advance a loan for the construction of the bridge, provided that the principal and interest were guaranteed by the Government. After consulting my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, I replied that, for reasons which have been explained in this House, it had not been the practice of successive Governments to borrow for new road construction.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that that reply will occasion no surprise? Can he indicate whether the prospects for the Forth road bridge have brightened since the announcement that he is to take over responsibility for roads and bridges in Scotland? Further, can he indicate whether there is any significance in the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), is now sitting with the Parliamentary Private Secretary on the bench behind?

Mr. Stuart: I can add nothing at this moment to what has already been said.

Health Centre, Glenrothes

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on the prospects of a new health centre in Glenrothes, Fife.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have come, with regret, to the conclusion that funds cannot be allocated for a health centre at Glenrothes from the resources available for the National Health Service. I am arranging to discuss with the development corporation and the county council alternative methods of providing the accommodation required for health services in the new town.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that this decision will cause profound disappointment in the developing mining areas in the east of Fife, and that it seems to be another Government blow at the whole idea of developing mining communities? How does he expect miners and their wives and families to come in from the west, when there are no education facilities, no industries, and now no health centre?

Mr. Stuart: I hope very much that it will be possible for the county council and the development corporation to work out satisfactory plans, which will, of course, rank for grant in the normal way.

Departmental Vehicles (Edinburgh-Dundee Route)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what route vehicles of his Department are instructed to follow on journeys between Edinburgh and Dundee.

Mr. J. Stuart: There are no standing orders laid down about the route to be followed on such journeys.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, a week ago today, the Minister of State made an official journey from Edinburgh to Dundee, that this journey was by way of the Kincardine road bridge, that it took four hours, and that he kept the people of Dundee waiting, and, very sensibly, returned thereafter by train? Does this not prove a lack of faith by the Scottish Office itself in the Forth ferry services, the complete inadequacy of the Kincardine road bridge as a means of communication between Edinburgh and

the north-east, and the urgent need for road bridges over the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth?

Mr. Stuart: I am sure that my noble Friend would wish me to express his deep apologies to those people whom he kept waiting in Dundee. My information is that he got held up in Glenfarg owing to ice conditions, and that it was not due to the Kincardine bridge. I would only add that I make this journey myself sometimes, and I make up my mind according to the season and the crowds. It is a matter of chacun à son goût.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

Promotion Schemes

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the anxieties of parents and the strain on children imposed by the promotion examination from primary to secondary schools; and if he will consult the local education authorities with a view to providing an alternative to this test.

Mr. J. Stuart: There is no evidence of serious or widespread anxiety or strain. The aim of promotion schemes is to find the right type of course for each pupil, and the decision on this is based not only on the results of the tests applied but also on other factors, such as an estimate by the primary school teacher of the pupil's capacity. Promotion schemes are kept under review by the authorities and the Department, and the authorities regard the present arrangements as generally satisfactory.

Mr. Hannan: The Question asked if the right hon. Gentleman would consult local authorities. Is he correctly informed upon this matter; and, further, is he aware that the fact that children are being segregated at this early age is creating great concern? Does not he agree that it is a bad thing, socially and educationally, to segregate these children at such an early age and put them into different schools?

Mr. Stuart: I am not a confirmed believer in the principle that everybody must pass examinations. I do not think that it is necessary. I was never particularly successful myself. I think that many perfectly good people come through without coming top in examinations. I shall


certainly bear in mind what the hon. Members says. We are, of course, in close consultation with the authorities.

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the local education authorities with a view to adopting the comprehensive school as the basis of secondary education in Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. I prefer to continue to leave it to each education authority to decide what type of secondary education is best suited to the particular circumstances and needs of its area.

Mr. Hannan: We are aware that local authorities have this power, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the comprehensive school system would eliminate the risk which now obtains of children being allocated to the wrong type of school at the present early age?

Mr. Stuart: I think that the local education authorities are the best people to decide how this comprehensive school question should be handled in their respective areas. They do differ. Glasgow, for example, takes an entirely opposite view from Fife. Due regard must be had to the particular problems of each locality.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Secretary of State agree that experience of this policy in Scotland would suggest that the comprehensive school system is the right one to adopt in the future?

Mr. Stuart: I think that the right course is to allow the local people, who best know their needs, to have some say in the matter.

Technical Education (Expenditure)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the amount per head of population spent on technical education in each Scottish education authority area.

Mr. J. Stuart: As the reply consists largely of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the urgency of persuading many local authorities to increase facilities in this very important aspect of education, particularly in the field of pre-apprenticeship and day-release training?

Mr. Stuart: I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman.

Following is the reply:
On the basis of the estimated populations of the areas concerned in mid-1953 and their unaudited returns for 1953–54, their expenditure per head on further education (excluding capital expenditure and contributions to other authorities in respect of students being educated in their areas) is given in the table below. Precise figures for expenditure on technical education are not available, but it is estimated that in 1953–54 it amounted to about £1.16 million, or 62 per cent. of the total expenditure incurred by education authorities on further education. The figures in the table do not include the provision for advanced technical education made in central institutions, the total expenditure on which for 1952–53 (the latest year available) was about 1.3 million, excluding capital expenditure.

Education authority

Expre. per head of Population


Aberdeen (Cnty.)
…
·24


Angus
…
·13


Argyle
…
·09


Ayr
…
·31


Banff
…
·13


Berwick
…
·20


Bute
…
·09


Caithness
…
·12


Clackmannan
…
·37


Dumfries
…
·14


Dunbarton
…
·22


East Lothian
…
·15


Fife
…
·39


Inverness
…
·13


Kincardine
…
·09


Kirkcudbright
…
·21


Lanark
…
·53


Midlothian
…
·20


Moray and Nairn
…
·17


Orkney
…
·36


Peebles
…
·15


Perth and Kinross
…
·21


Renfrew
…
·18


Ross and Cromarty
…
·12


Roxburgh
…
·25


Selkirk
…
·25


Stirling
…
·34


Sutherland
…
·49


West Lothian
…
·11


Wigtown
…
·20


Zetland
…
·23


Burghs


Aberdeen
…
·59


Dundee
…
·61


Edinburgh
…
·41


Glasgow
…
·54

School Building (Expenditure)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum he estimates will be spent on school building in Scotland during 1955.

Mr. J. Stuart: On the information available I estimate that the value of school building work which will be carried out by education authorities in 1955 will be of the order of £9 million.

Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the percentage representing new school building as against the minor work of expanding old schools?

Mr. Stuart: I can tell the hon. Member that the total value of work likely to be done will be of the order of £10 million, of which over £9 million will be spent upon schools.

Dental Students

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase the intake of students into Dundee Dental College.

Mr. J. Stuart: The shortage of dental students is general throughout the country, and, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health announced on 6th December, we are setting up an Inter-Departmental Committee to inquire into the reasons and suggest directions in which remedies might be sought.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Secretary of State consider some sort of planning, in consultation with the Scottish universities and local authorities, with regard to the dispersal of students between the various educational facilities?

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly remember what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will ask the Committee to take it into account.

Shorthand and Typewriting Training (Personal Case)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a grant to ensure that the girl who passed first in her class at Dornoch Academy, details of whose case are in his possession, shall be able to obtain training in shorthand and typewriting at Inverness, as such training is not available to her in Sutherland.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have no power to make such a grant. I understand, however, that Sutherland education authority informed the parent that it was prepared to consider an application for a bursary to enable the girl to attend evening classes in shorthand and typewriting during the current session, which are available in its own area as well as Inverness.

Sir D. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this girl cannot afford to stay in the Highland village of Embo out of work, which would be her lot if she was dependent on evening classes? Is he also aware that my Question was directed to asking my right hon. Friend to give her a bursary for full-time training in Inverness on terms equal to that offered her to the value of over £100 for training in domestic service at Bridge of Allan?

Mr. Stuart: I think the best thing that my hon. Friend could do, if he would not mind my offering the suggestion, would be to have a friendly talk with the Sutherland Education Committee to see if a grant can be budgeted for.

Mr. Ede: Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman himself to have a talk with the Sutherland Education Committee, its friendliness depending on its responsiveness to his approach?

Mr. Stuart: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that my intervention would be of any help, and if my hon. Friend has no objection. I will do my best.

Sir D. Robertson: While I always value the advice of my right hon. Friend, is it not a fact that about five-sixths of what is spent in paying for education in Sutherland is the taxpayers' money, and is it not his responsibility to a much greater extent than that of the Education Committee?

Mr. Stuart: I think that although central funds do contribute very largely, this is a matter for the local education authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Offices, Glasgow (Contract Terms)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Works the accepted tender price for the new offices at Maryhill Road, Glasgow; and whether the contract was fixed under a time and penalty clause.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): It would be contrary to normal practice to disclose the amount of accepted tenders for Government contracts, but I can say that the contract contains the usual penalty clause for delay.

Mr. Hannan: Can the Minister give any indication of when this building is likely to be completed?

Mr. Birch: I understand that it is due to be completed by 31st March, 1955.

Government Offices and Staff, West End

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Works the total number of Government offices; the estimated total number of civil servants employed therein; and the estimated rents paid by the Exchequer in the London district bounded by Park Lane, Oxford Street, Regent Street, and Piccadilly.

Mr. Birch: There are 18 offices in the charge of my Department in the area, housing about 6,700 staff. The estimated total rents, including an allowance for Crown freeholds, are about £440,000 per annum.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In view of the urgent need to economise as much as possible in the spending of the taxpayers' money, would it not be a good thing to let these bureaucrats work on less expensive sites? Could they not work equally well south of the river, say, near the Elephant and Castle? Could they not be more appropriately housed, say, near the gasometer at the Oval? Why must they work in the most expensive parts of Mayfair?

Mr. Birch: My hon. and gallant Friend is fertile in making useful suggestions, but he will have worked out already that the rent is about £66 per head, and for all headquarters offices in the London area the average is £63 per head, so that I do not think it is very much too high.

Mr. Isaacs: Is there not a risk that, if these civil servants were to work around the Elephant and Castle, they might go into the Elephant and Castle and get "elephant's trunk"?

Sir W. Darling: If my right hon. Friend increases the number of civil servants, will it not reduce the figure from £63 per head?

Royal Sailors' Home and Club, Portsmouth

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Works (1) what consultations he had with the Admiralty before granting an allocation of steel for the building of the Royal Sailors' Home and Club;
(2) why steel was allotted out of Admiralty allocations for the building of the Royal Sailors' Home and Club, Portsmouth, when there was insufficient money available to complete the club.

Mr. Birch: In 1949, 75 tons of steel per quarter were granted out of the steel allocation for civil building, after consultation with the Admiralty.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that these two Questions were originally put down to the Admiralty, whose responsibility, in my opinion, they are; and, further, that this steel was allocated out of an Admiralty allocation for other purposes during six years of Socialism?

Stonehenge (Recommendations)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Works what plans for raising some of the fallen stones at Stonehenge have been authorised by his Department.

Mr. Birch: I have received recommendations from the Ancient Monuments Board for England. These are being examined.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister publish the results of what decisions he reaches?

Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir.

Royal Parks (Car Parking)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Works what protests he has received against the use of the Royal Parks as car parks.

Mr. Birch: I have received one letter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that the use of the Royal Parks for this purpose shows that the Government's policy for dealing with traffic in the West End has completely broken


down? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the chaos will be even greater unless he widens or by-passes the gateways to the Royal Parks, where there is already considerable congestion, before these car parks are established?

Mr. Birch: The question of the gateways is a different one.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that motorists, of which I am one, are quite rapacious in their demands and will take every inch of open space that they can get? Will he, therefore, resist any further encroachment on these beautiful parks, and assure the House that these arrangements are entirely temporary?

Mr. Birch: I will certainly do so.

Building Industry (Restrictive Practices)

Mr. Turner: asked the Minister of Works whether he will now make a statement about the Report of the Monopolies Commission on the supply of buildings in the Greater London area.

Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 19th October last, the London Builders' Conference has abandoned the practices criticised by the Commission. I welcome and accept its assurances. Similar practices have been followed to some extent outside London and the Government take the view that these also should be given up.
In future firms will not be included on any list of approved Government contractors for new buildings if in tendering for such work they follow the practices criticised by the Commission. The firms already on the lists are being asked to confirm that they wish to remain there and accept this condition. This will make it unnecessary to continue the use of the form of declaration which was directed against these practices.
The attention of the associations of local authorities is being drawn to the Report and to the action taken.

Mr. Turner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the outcome of this matter, which he has just announced, will give very general satisfaction?

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say whether the ban on firms being allowed

to contract if they do not comply with these conditions will apply to contracts for local authorities?

Mr. Birch: No, Sir. What I said applied to the Government list of tenderers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities follow different practices, and it will be up to them to decide what to do, but I am drawing their attention to what we are doing.

Mr. Gibson: Can the Minister say whether the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission to the effect that there should be a conference between the London Builders' Conference, the R.I.B.A., and other building interests, has yet been carried out, and, if so, what the result was?

Mr. Birch: There has been no general conference of the parties concerned. I have seen them individually.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he will be able to check whether, in fact, these practices are continued or not?

Mr. Birch: I think that our ability to check whether they are being followed or not will remain as good or as bad as it is now. I think that we should be able to detect any flagrant abuse.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (COAL FIRES)

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, since the abolition of coal fires in the Palace of Westminster, there is now no reasonable way for an hon. Member arriving from the country in a chilled condition to thaw out; and if he will arrange that there should be at least one such fire available.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): The condition to which the hon. and gallant Member refers can be remedied without a coal fire. The Members' Writing Room off the Lower Waiting Hall is kept at a temperature of 69 degrees Fahrenheit by central heating, and if hon. Members want more heat there is also an electric fire there.

Sir J. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that the electric fires have no heat whatever, that they have not got a heater, and


that the only way in which a Member can get warm in a hurry is either to sit on a radiator or have a hot bath? Could he not have a small electric heater put in the Members' Cloakroom, to be switched on if required?

Mr. Bevins: No, Sir; I am afraid that my hon. Friend is misinformed. If the electric fire is switched on, the temperature can be raised to 75 degrees Fahrenheit very quickly, which I should have thought was good enough to thaw out anyone.

Mr. Chetwynd: Could not the hon. Gentleman solve the problem if he took a run round the Terrace or in New Palace Yard until he got warm?

Oral Answers to Questions — RESEARCH (LUNG CANCER)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is taking place into the possible effect of petrol fumes as a cause of cancer of the lung.

Mr. Bevins: The Medical Research Council are undertaking an extensive programme of work on the effects of atmospheric pollution on health. Research on the possibility of engine exhaust fumes being a factor in causing lung cancer forms part of this programme.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that the incidence of this form of cancer coincides at least as much with the increased use of petrol as with the increased use of tobacco, and that this might be a helpful line of inquiry to be followed in relation to this baffling and terrible disease?

Mr. Bevins: That may be so, but the fact remains that so far there is no established connection between the two.

Dr. Stross: Has the Minister noticed that in his Report for 1953, recently published, the Chief Medical Officer speaks of the march of this disease as being inexorable and mysterious, and points out that last year 1,000 more people died from cancer of the lung as compared with 1952? Can the Minister explain to us why the word "mysterious" is still used when his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in February was quite explicit

that there was an obvious association between excessive cigarette smoking and cancer of the lung?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, the Report has been brought to the attention of my noble Friend. I think that that particular expression may have been rather unfortunate.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUNIOR MINISTERS (SALARIES)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister if he can yet state what decision has been reached in the consideration given to increasing the salaries of junior Ministers.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Prime Minister recollect the unanimity of the House regarding the necessity for an increase—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Dodds: —of course, with the exception of the hon. Member on my right—and will he not endeavour to get a decision at the earliest possible moment, or can he say when he is likely to say Yes or No?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary shall discuss this matter with the Lord Privy Seal and look into it from every aspect, and the Lord Privy Seal hopes to bring the matter up when we meet again after Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (FIRST LORD'S SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on 14th December made on an official occasion concerning the future of aircraft carriers and of the Royal Navy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in any recent speech has said anything that could not have


been readily inferred from the restatement of naval policy made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the debate on the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Prime Minister aware that in this speech the First Lord of the Admiralty severely rebuked Lord Montgomery for saying that we should not build any more aircraft carriers because they were obsolete; and that he also rebuked him for saying that the rôle of the Navy would be much reduced in the future? What we would like to know is who is right, the Field Marshal or the First Lord?

The Prime Minister: I think that before the House takes a final decision on that matter, hon. Members would do well to enlighten themselves by the debates that will take place after Christmas on the Service Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT (UNITED KINGDOM BASES)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether the agreement he reached with the United States Government on 9th January, 1952, on the use of air bases in the United Kingdom by United States military aircraft in an emergency is still in force.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This arrangement, as the hon. Lady will perhaps recall, was made originally by the late Government in the summer of 1948.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last week-end the N.A.T.O. Council confirmed the fact that its military plans are based on the assumption that atomic weapons will be used automatically in the next war; which means, therefore, that when war is declared it will inevitably become an atomic war on a full scale, involving also the use of the United States Strategic Air Force in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and in view of this fact, and the change in the situation—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: This does not really expedite business.

Mrs. Castle: —which it involves since this agreement in 1948, can the right hon.

Gentleman tell the House what plans have been made or are being made for consultative machinery to be set up between the N.A.T.O. Powers concerned in order to get full political control over the use of atomic weapons?

The Prime Minister: I believe that I could contribute to the knowledge of the House on the matter, but not within the scope of a supplementary answer.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of a statement in the "Manchester Guardian" today that this country could be wiped out in the first 30 hours of a possible next war? Does he not think, in those circumstances, that we have entered into agreements which are making this country not more secure but less secure? In the interests of the great majority of the people of this country, is it not time that these agreements were revised?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must not suppose that these matters are not always under grave re-examination and thought. I think they are the principal matter in the minds of the responsible people—I may say on both sides of the House. Anyone can see what the situation is. It is not easy to see how it can be remedied or removed.

Mrs. Castle: On a point of order. The Prime Minister said that Question time is not the appropriate time for eliciting what is decided by the N.A.T.O. Council. What opportunity will this House have of knowing what has been decided in these important discussions?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE (INVITATIONS)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Prime Minister how far consideration as to the personal qualities of Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries, other than Dominions, influences the decision as to whether or not they should be invited to Commonwealth Conferences.

The Prime Minister: As I informed the right hon. Member on 14th December, there are long-established reasons for the invitation to the Prime Minister


of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to join the Prime Ministers' meeting in January.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister not aware that he also informed me that the personal qualities and position of Sir Godfrey Huggins had to be considered? Does that mean that his personal qualities and position have to be considered, while the personal qualities and position of other Prime Ministers have not to be considered? Does it mean that, for some reason or other, Sir Godfrey Huggins is in a special position which is not accorded to the Prime Ministers of Malta, the Gold Coast, and Nigeria, and that they have not special consideration?

The Prime Minister: The fact that Sir Godfrey Huggins has been here so many times running, and is now at the head of an even larger State, constitutes an additional reason, but it is not on that that I base the claim that he should come. The claim is based on rightful representation.

Mr. Dugdale: Surely the Prime Minister would agree that even he has not a prescriptive right to remain Prime Minister always, however great his personal qualities.

The Prime Minister: I have never made such a claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT (DEVELOPMENT AND PROCUREMENT)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister the system of co-ordination between the Ministry of Supply, the Air Ministry and the Admiralty for the obtaining of aircraft.

The Prime Minister: When the Socialist Government came into power in 1945, they abolished the Ministry of Aircraft Production and transferred its functions to the Ministry of Supply. We have not altered this arrangement. The Ministry of Supply therefore performs a common service for the Admiralty and the Air Ministry in the development and procurement of aircraft. Co-operation between the three Departments is intimate and continuous. As the system is rather lengthy to describe in detail, I will circulate a note in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is not possible to argue these technical

matters at Question Time. A suitable Parliamentary occasion arises on the Estimates which will be discussed after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Wyatt: As there has now been revealed an appalling delay in deliveries of aircraft for the Royal Air Force and for the Navy, not only of fighters but of bombers, is it not time for a thorough overhaul of the system of procurement? Is it not one of the great difficulties that nobody seems to have the power to make the decision when to stop alterations and modification to aircraft and to start actually building and putting aircraft into production? Could not the Prime Minister do something about it urgently, instead of referring back to 1945, which is nine years ago?

The Prime Minister: These matters are all being most earnestly considered and examined. There is great and increased complexity of aircraft, and extraordinary rapidity of development, one generation of aircraft succeeding another so rapidly that the life of an aircraft in the process of construction undoubtedly far exceeds the life of an individual Minister of Supply. It may be twice and it may be thrice as long, with all the preparations and so forth. This has all to be considered. It certainly raises in my mind the broad general question of whether a special Ministry should not be recreated to deal with the prolonged process of production. Happily, I believe, the delays that have taken place through accidents, through too few prototypes and through unfortunate and tragic events here and there, will not work out to our disadvantage. They may be settled, and result in a satisfactory flow before the period of comparative safety in which we are living has elapsed.

Mr. Callaghan: Whether they work out to our disadvantage or not, they will certainly have resulted in a considerable loss of public money. Could the Prime Minister consider whether the Estimates will be the best opportunity of examining a subject of this complexity? Will he take note of the fact that it is our considered view here that there is need for a committee of inquiry into the state of the aircraft industry, both civil and military, to see whether the public is getting value for its money?

The Prime Minister: If it is a question of getting value for money and of estimates and so on, I should have thought that when the Estimates are considered will be an admirable time for Members to make their remarks on this subject.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Prime Minister realise that this subject is far too complex, technical, and detailed, to be dealt with by exchanges across the Floor of the House? Would he seriously consider the possibility of setting up some sort of committee for investigating the matter and probing it with the thoroughness it needs?

The Prime Minister: I am rather shy of putting my faith on any matter of great intricacy in "some sort of committee."

Following is the Note:
An operational requirement is drawn up by the Service concerned in consultation with the Ministry of Supply. Steps are taken to prevent unnecessary overlapping between Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm requirements. After detailed examination and acceptance of the requirement by the Ministry of Supply, a contract is placed for the design and development of the aircraft required. It is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturer to carry through flight and other tests until he considers that the aircraft meets the specification.
Throughout this process the Ministry of Supply is in close touch with the progress being made. When the aircraft manufacturer considers that the aircraft meets the specification, further tests are carried out by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment of the Ministry of Supply. Arrangements have recently been made for flight tests to be made by this Establishment's pilots in advance of the formal acceptance trials. In the light of the Establishment's report and in agreement with the Service Department, a release is given by the Ministry of Supply. Throughout, the Service Department is kept informed and takes steps to inform itself of developments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Web Equipment Cleaner

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War if the new type of cleaner for green and buff web equipment has yet been brought into general use in place of blanco.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): The new type of cleaner will be on sale by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in this country by the end of this month, and overseas, it is hoped, in March or April next year.

Mr. Dodds: Now that this revolutionary change has taken place, could it not be marked with some sort of ceremonial, in view of its importance?

Mr. Maclean: That would be most suitable. Having used the old cleaner and used the new one, I should be the first to welcome it. If the hon. Member has any suggestion perhaps he will let me know of it.

Home Guard

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will now arrange to disband the Home Guard, in view of the fact that he has already issued instructions for Home Guard training to be reduced to a minimum, and in view of the continued failure to obtain the required number of recruits.

Mr. F. Maclean: No, Sir. The War Office has issued no such instructions, and the strength of the Home Guard continues to increase.

Mr. Wyatt: Is not the Minister aware that Major Moore, commanding A Company, 12th Essex Battalion Home Guard, gave as his explicit reason for resigning the fact that he had received instructions from the War Office that training had to be curtailed to the minimum? Is he also aware that the few people who have volunteered for the Home Guard are very dissatisfied about the lack of attention given by the War Office?

Mr. Maclean: As regards the specific case to which the hon. Member has referred, he must surely realise that the training periods of units are curtailed or increased in individual cases. Because one officer is dissatisfied does not prove there is anything the matter with the Home Guard as a whole. Indeed, the figures show very much the opposite.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES)

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has any statement to make on the Government's intentions with regard to the Parliamentary Constituencies Orders?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir.
Since I replied to the right hon. Gentleman's question yesterday, the Court of Appeal has ordered the discharge of the injunction granted by Mr. Justice Roxburgh on the question of the Boundary Commission's Report. The court held that there was no ground for saying that there was any departure by the Commission from the rules it had to observe. For the reasons given in court by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, Her Majesty's Government are of the opinion that the matter was not justiciable, and in this they hope they carry with them the House as a whole, as these are grave matters involving its rights.
The Government are, however, anxious not to inconvenience hon. Members by asking them to continue to sit this week in order to complete the discussion of the remaining Orders. We propose, therefore, to put them down during the week in which the House resumes after the forthcoming Recess. In the meanwhile, the Orders already approved in draft by both Houses will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval.

Mr. Attlee: While I am glad that it is not intended to try to rush through these Orders before the Christmas Recess, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, as a holiday task, he would read the Report of the debates which have taken place, because the House is very much under the impression that it has been a waste of time to discuss these Orders? Although very cogent reasons were put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House on some of these proposals, no adequate replies were given by the Ministers, who seemed to depend all the time on saying, "This has been decided by the Commission." It is quite clear from the reports of the case in the courts that the view taken there was that a considerable flexibility was allowed to the

Commission. If that is so, should not there be some flexibility on the part of the Government? Could not this matter be looked at again?
We have the impression that the replies of Ministers have been directed not to the arguments but simply to stating, "This has been decided by the Commission. We are accepting the Commission and we will not accept any arguments whatever." That has been said particularly in the Manchester case, to cite only one. There was a general opinion by Members of all parties in this matter, yet no notice whatever was taken of it by the Government. Further, on the legal points, the replies of the Attorney-General which were given in court might very well have been given in this House. I ask the Prime Minister whether, in those circumstances, it might not be well to hold back the submission of these Orders until he has had an opportunity of applying his mind to the issues raised and the arguments that have been put forward.

The Prime Minister: I will certainly read the reports in HANSARD at the request of the Leader of the Opposition. But I will not myself attempt to answer the detailed part of his question, because my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the House will deal with that.

Mr. Elliot: Mr. Elliotrose—

Mr. Crookshank: Mr. Crookshankrose—

Mr. Speaker: There is a contest of priorities here. I will call the Leader of the House first, as he is answering a question.

Mr. Crookshank: I was only going to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is really impossible to re-debate matters which the House has already settled, and that when he animadverts on my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General it may be that he himself was not in the House at the time. Indeed, everybody could not be here all the time, throughout the whole of Thursday night. Some hon. Members were not here any of the time. My right hon. and learned Friend did not say, in general, anything on these matters in the court which had not been said by him here.

Mr. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the utmost satisfaction will be felt in Scotland about the Orders which were submitted and received the general


approval of this House, and that, therefore, no time should be wasted but they should be put into effect forthwith?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: If the correct view is that which has been held by the Court of Appeal—although it is not necessarily final in the Court of Appeal; I understand that there are other cases pending and that matters may be taken further—and assuming that these matters are not justiciable, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is, therefore, all the more important that the House of Commons should deal with this matter judicially, as we pressed on Wednesday when we debated the Orders? Would he not agree that the proper course would be not to submit to Her Majesty in Council the Orders that have already been through the House, but to take no further steps until all the English Orders have been considered by the House? I am confining myself to the English Orders; I am saying nothing about Scotland or Wales, because only the English Orders are involved. Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of considering this matter, in view of all its very grave constitutional implications, before proceeding further with these Orders?

Mr. Crookshank: First of all, I understand that there are no cases pending. Those of which notice has been given have been dismissed by consent. That disposes of that point. As for the Orders which have now been approved by both Houses, there can be no other action than to submit them to Her Majesty.

Mr. Bing: Will the Leader of the House answer this point? Suppose that the House were to come to the conclusion that one of the Orders which it was debating was unsatisfactory, how could any changes possibly be made if the Royal Assent had already been given to Orders which would prejudice those changes? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how it is possible to debate some of the Orders if the other Orders upon which they depend are not alterable?

Mr. Crookshank: All I can say in reply to that is that the House has already decided a great number of these matters. As a result, if one takes into account the Orders already approved

and adds the number of constituencies which are not affected by the Boundary Commission's Report, about five-sixths of the country has already been disposed of.

Sir P. Spens: Is there any authority or precedent whatsoever whereby, when any Order or Bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, any Government has any right to refrain from presenting it for Royal Assent?

Mr. Crookshank: I can only say that I have no knowledge of any such precedent.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said in his first statement that the questions which had been raised in this matter were not justiciable, and I have no doubt that he meant that that was the view of the House, but will he bear in mind that the Court of Appeal's judgment conceded no such thing? The Court of Appeal's judgment proceeded on an examination of the merits and the injunction was set aside on the ground that there was no prima facie evidence that anybody's rights had, in fact, been illegally infringed. The court made it perfectly clear, did it not, that if it had thought that there had been such an infringement, it would have regarded it as within its power to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Indeed, it was stated that the courts had already claimed such a right.
What I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: if I am right so far—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, you are not."]—and I say "if"—then we have here the seeds of a most undesirable conflict between Parliament and the courts. In those circumstances, does he not think it desirable, as with some force on some grounds these objections have been taken, that the Boundary Commission might now be authorised to take back its Report and reconsider it in the light of the objections which have been made?

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member has not had time to study what was said in detail in the Court of Appeal; and, if so, I cannot blame him. I have had the opportunity to do so and also had advice on this matter. I certainly would not express any opinion on it, but the Attorney-General will perhaps be very happy to put the documents in the Library, or somewhere else where they


can be made available to hon. and right hon. Members, showing exactly what occurred in the Court of Appeal.
I think the hon. Member also misheard—possibly it was my fault—or misunderstood what I said. It was not that Parliament necessarily thought this was not justiciable. In my statement I expressed the opinion of Her Majesty's Government and the hope that we carried the House with us, because these are grave matters. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), called attention to them yesterday.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether there has been a Cabinet decision that under no circumstances should changes be allowed in these Orders? If there has, it is not much good the House debating them.

Mr. Crookshank: It is not much good an ex-Prime Minister asking what Cabinet decisions were.

Mr. Doughty: If it has now been decided that these Orders are made in conformity with the Rules under the 1949 Act passed by the late Government, is it not very undesirable that any political party should seek to disturb the findings of an impartial body, namely, the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Paget: Does the Lord Privy Seal consider that the constitutional issue which has arisen here can be left standing where it is? As I understand it, the proposition amounts to this: that the courts claim—and it has not been decided one way or the other whether this is a valid claim—that they have a right to deny to a Minister of the Crown access to the Crown. That seems to me to be an entirely novel claim by the courts and one of enormous constitutional importance, because under it anybody can hold up most important matters in this way until this question is decided. Either by legislation or by some other means, ought not something to be done to clear up this very grave situation?

Mr. Crookshank: Not for the first time, the hon. and learned Member has put his finger on the point at issue. This is why, both yesterday and today, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I purposely used the word "grave." We are not prepared to go further today.

Mr. Bevan: It appears perfectly clear that the courts could not interfere with the access of a Minister to the Crown after the House of Commons had approved the draft Orders. That position does not apply, however, to the draft Orders which have not yet been discussed by the House, and apparently the courts would be free to grant injunctions against them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Denial of access to the Crown for the Minister does not arise until the House has, first of all, carried the draft Orders.
Is it not a most serious matter that the Government have behaved, are behaving, and apparently propose to behave as though Parliament has passed its constitution into the hands of the Commission? This is a most grave matter. It was never the intention of the Statute at all. It was always held that the House of Commons should consider each of these draft Orders on its merits. Now, however, when we come to consider the draft Orders after Christmas, obviously, if the same arguments are to be used against the validation of some of them as have already been rejected in respect of others, it becomes an automatic process to present them to the House of Commons; in which case what the Government have done is to put the constitution of the House virtually outside the powers of the Houses of Parliament. That is what has happened in practice.
In my respectful submission, if, every time an argument is put forward, the only answer is a three-line Whip and the Minister saying that the Commission's finding must be carried out, what we have in effect, and in practice, whatever the theory of it may be, is a procedure of driving through the House of Commons the reconstitution of the constituencies by party majority.

Mr. Callaghan: Are we not to have a reply from the Lord Privy Seal? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's evasiveness in answer to my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister mean that when we resume the discussion of these Orders we shall have the farce of another three-line Whip and an obedient majority?

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Member asks me to reply to his right hon. Friend. I did not rise to reply immediately, because I was not quite sure what the question was. It seems to me that the


right hon. Gentleman was expressing his opinion on the general action which has been taken.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is the same electoral register to apply in respect of the Orders which have already been passed as in respect of those which it is expected that we shall pass when we meet again? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in this connection, that some London Orders have been passed and some have not?

Mr. Crookshank: The answer to that is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. H. Nicholls: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said:
… the Government seem to have been extraordinarily ill-advised by their Law Officers"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2451.]
Since the right hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, in his observations today, continued his attack on individual Members of the Government, and since those words came not only from the Leader of the Opposition but from a barrister, in view of the Court of Appeal's decision ought not the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw them?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can carry this matter further at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir, the business for the first week after the Christmas Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY, 25TH JANUARY—Second Readings:
Army Bill.
Air Force Bill.
Revision of the Army and Air Force Acts (Transitional Provisions) Bill.
Second Reading: Transport (Borrowing Powers) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution.
Committee and remaining stages: New Towns Bill, if there is time.
WEDNESDAY, 26TH JANUARY—Outstanding draft Parliamentary Constituencies Orders.
THURSDAY, 27TH JANUARY—Second Reading: Crofters (Scotland) Bill.
Committee stage: Money Resolution, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.
Afterwards, debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs (Cmd. 9212).
FRIDAY, 28TH JANUARY—Private Members' Motions.
During the week we hope that there will be an opportunity to consider the Motions to set up the Estimates Committee, and the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not be undesirable for the Government to commit themselves too definitely to the Second Reading of the Crofters (Scotland) Bill, because they might not have got the Orders relating to constituencies by then?

Mr. Crookshank: If the right hon. Member does not want us to be committed he is quite entitled to his own opinion.

Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison: In view of the fact that the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs has to be taken on the Thursday, and involves a large number of important questions relating to Scotland, would my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule that day?

Mr. Foot: Referring to the draft Orders under the Boundary Commission's proposals, since there is now almost a month available, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements with the Home Secretary for a public inquiry to be held in the case of those constituencies which have been refused a public inquiry, especially as, in the debate on Orders passed on Thursday last, the Home Secretary told us that he could not go into the details of particular cases? Parliament is the only court of appeal on these constituency boundary cases and when we come to the trial the judge says that he is not able to go into details. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out the same procedure, when we meet after the Recess, as was carried out by the Home Secretary when we were discussing the other Orders on Thursday?

Mr. Crookshank: The question of an inquiry, I understand, is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Commissioners.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the Lord Privy Seal have another look at the Scottish business for the Thursday? The Crofters (Scotland) Bill is a Bill we have not yet seen and is based on a Report by a very important independent Commission. Our first opportunity to discuss that Report will be after we have discussed the Bill. It is surely absurd that the House should be asked to deal with these two very important matters in one day's Sitting. Could we not have a day for each?

Mr. Crookshank: I think: we had better leave things as they are at present. The Bill will be available this afternoon and the hon. Member will realise that there was a Report on this subject.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Lord Privy Seal should realise that on Thursdays we are occasionally kept a little later from starting the announced business? Today, for example, we have already lost 25 minutes. This sort of thing means that a matter which is vital to the whole life of the Highlands will have to be dealt with in about three hours. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the people of Inverness—today of all days—that three hours is all he can spare for discussion of this most important matter?

Mr. Crookshank: I have had the privilege and pleasure of seeing the Crofters (Scotland) Bill already, and the hon. Member has not. When he sees it I hope he will be satisfied with it. It certainly is not my fault if we do not get on to business until a late hour on Thursdays. What I have to say is very brief; it is nearly always other hon. Members who take up the time.

Mr. Mulley: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing more time for discussion of the remaining draft Parliamentary Constituencies Orders? Does he realise that in the case of Sheffield, which is the last English Order, we have been refused a public inquiry and that we hope we shall be able to ventilate our grievances at a more convenient time than the middle of the night?

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY (AGREEMENT)

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.
My right hon. Friend is laying before the House today as a White Paper the text of an Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community, which was signed this morning 'between Her Majesty's Government on the one hand and the Governments of the States members of the Community and the High Authority of the Community on the other.
This Agreement establishes a Standing Council of Association composed of four representatives of the United Kingdom Government of whom at least one will, whenever possible, be a member of the Government, and four representatives of the High Authority of whom at least three will, whenever possible, be members of the High Authority. In view of the powers and responsibilities which have been conferred by law upon the National Coal Board and the Iron and Steel Board, the representatives of the United Kingdom Government on the Council of Association will include one member of each of these Boards.
The function of the Council of Association will be to provide means for continuous consultation in regard to matters of mutual interest relating to coal and steel. It will also provide for appropriate consultation, in regard to the coordination of action, to deal with these matters consistent with the international obligations of the parties concerned.
The Council of Association will also examine restrictions and other factors affecting normal trade in coal and steel between the two areas, with a view to making such proposals for their reduction or elimination as may be agreed for the mutual benefit of the United Kingdom and the Community.
The Agreement also provides for special meetings in which the United Kingdom Government will meet with the Council of Ministers of the Community. The High Authority will participate in these meetings.
Due regard will be paid to the interests of consumers as well as of producers of coal and steel, to the interest of third countries and to the special relationship between the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth. The Agreement will remain in force for the duration of the Treaty setting up the Community.
I trust that this new arrangement will help to promote a growing association between the United Kingdom and the European Coal and Steel Community which will contribute to our common prosperity as well as to the unity of Europe.

Mr. Robens: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being on less explosive ground with this statement than with the one on Formosa in another country. As he knows, we on this side of the House are not in favour of a supranational authority, but are very much in favour of close discussions with the High Authority of the Coal and Steel Community. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in the inclusion of a member of the Coal Board and of the Iron and Steel Board, trade union interests in both these industries will be taken closely into consultation?
As we have not yet had a copy of the White Paper and not had the time to study the question, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House whether we might have a short debate, when we come back after the Recess, not only on this matter, but perhaps, also, on the whole question of the Council of Europe?

Mr. Nutting: On the last question, I will consult my right hon. Friend as the right hon. Member suggests. The Agreement will be subject to ratification in the course of normal constitutional procedure. As to the trade unions, the answer is "Yes." They will be consulted throughout in the future, as they have been in the past, in the drawing up of this Treaty.

Mr. Smithers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are delighted with

this Agreement in view of the fact that it should help not merely to promote stable conditions in the industries but also to assist in the maintenance of employment should those industries run into difficulties? Is he aware that some of us also hope that the Community will get on with the job of integrating the industries on the Continent for which, primarily, it was set up?

Mr. J. Hynd: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think he is making the maximum contribution to encouraging the unity of Europe by requiring the setting up of additional machinery and additional meetings to suit the specially privileged position of this country? Would it not be better, and a greater encouragement to Europe, if we were to accept full membership along with the other countries?

Mr. Nutting: I think the hon. Member holds a minority view on that question. I consider that this will be a signal contribution to the unity of Europe.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May we take it that as a result of this Agreement the coal and steel industries of this country are not now stopped from taking decisions as to production and other matters which formerly they were free to take?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir, I think that when my noble Friend reads the Agreement any fears he has on that question will be set at rest.

Mr. Wade: In view of the reference which the Minister has made to the interests of consumers, can he say whether one of the four persons appointed by the United Kingdom Government will be a representative of the consumers?

Mr. Nutting: I cannot say that for certain. As I said in my statement, one will, whenever possible, be a member of the Government, and two on the Council of Association will be representatives of the two Boards concerned. Who the fourth will be has not yet been decided.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. George Wigg: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short personal statement.
On Thursday, 9th December, the Prime Minister, when replying to a question, referred to me as an "Army schoolmaster." I wish, therefore, with your permission, to state that I joined the Regular Army as a private soldier and from the time of my enlistment until my discharge to pension as a non-commissioned officer I served in such capacities and at such stations as I was ordered to do by my superior officers.
At the outbreak of war, I volunteered to rejoin the Army and during my service I held a number of staff appointments, but at no time during my service, either commissioned or in the ranks, did hold the appointment of Army schoolmaster, although, Mr. Speaker, I should have done so with pride had I possessed the necessary qualifications.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I certainly express my regret that I was misinformed upon the subject of the hon. Member being an Army schoolmaster, and this has been made all the more necessary by a letter which I have received from the President of the Ex-Army Schoolmasters' Association. I was very perturbed when I read—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I thought that it had been repeatedly ruled that a personal statement was not debatable in any way.

Mr. Speaker: A personal statement is never debatable. If another hon. Member of this House is involved in the personal statement made by the Member, he is generally allowed to give his own view of the matter and to say whether he accepts it or not.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Further to that point of order. I always understood, Sir, that if a right hon. or hon. Member wished to withdraw, he should withdraw simply and without reading the views on the matter of the President of the Ex-Army Schoolmasters' Association or anyone else.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Is it not a well-established custom of this House that there is one rule for the Prime Minister and another rule for the rest of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member really should not make such a suggestion. I understood the Prime Minister to say that he expressed his regret to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and was going to elaborate it with a statement, which, I thought, would probably be of interest and amusement to the House. If objection is taken to that, I must so rule.

The Prime Minister: I have expressed regret that I was misinformed on the subject. I was going to express regret in another direction from which I have also been reproached, but as it will be more for the convenience of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—I will make it public in another way.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: A personal statement is not debatable; we cannot go on with this.

Miss Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did state that if the House wished to hear the Prime Minister it would be interesting to the House. Am I not entitled to say that I should like to hear the Prime Minister?

Mr. Wigg: May I make it quite clear, Sir, that I much prefer the Prime Minister's insults to his apologies, because I know that the insults are sincere.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow this to go on.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock and no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House Tomorrow until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Five o'clock adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[The Prime Minister.]

Mr. Ede: This is an unusual Motion to appear on the Order Paper. Does the Leader of the House think that he cannot get a sufficient number of Ministers here to keep the House, if necessary, tomorrow?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I do not see what this has to do with the number of Ministers present. The point of this Motion is that if, by any chance, the Measure which is being dealt with in the House in another place tomorrow had not been completed at the time of the rising of the House, and the Royal Commission, therefore, was not ready while the House was sitting up to five o'clock, this Motion would allow an extension in order to get the Royal Assent. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is very unusual, I would point out that I am actually following the precedent of 1947.

Mr. Ede: I do not dispute that at all. But the position is not quite what the right hon. Gentleman says, because if at any time during the day attention is drawn to the fact that 40 Members are not present, Mr. Speaker cannot take notice of that, whether he leaves the Chair and returns when the Commission are ready in another place, or whether he remains in the Chair, knowing that a quorum is not present. There is nothing in this Motion to guide us.

Mr. Crookshank: I think we can leave that difficulty, should it arise, to be dealt with by Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the Motion is to safeguard the Royal Commission.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can assist the House in this matter. If there were no quorum, I should suspend the House until I was told that there was a quorum; and the arrival of Black Rod, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, makes the House.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th January.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to oppose this Motion, and I do so because I think that the House of Commons is not justified at present in prolonging its Christmas holidays until 25th January. There is such important business that needs to be transacted that the House should come back at least a fortnight sooner and get to work earlier on the Government's legislative programme which is so much behind time.
I suggest that, in view of the grave international situation, in which grave matters affecting the ratification of certain treaties may precipitate difficult problems in international affairs, and so that the House shall keep a check and maintain vigilance upon the Government's policy, the whole of the foreign situation justifies our returning a fortnight earlier so that we can keep a vigilant eye on what Her Majesty's Government are doing.
There are other matters in the foreign field. There is, for example, the question of Cyprus. In view of the state of affairs in Cyprus and in view of the Government's attitude, I believe that this House is justified in coming back a fortnight earlier. I see no reason whatever why the House of Commons should have an extended month's holiday at Christmas when most of Her Majesty's subjects have only a fortnight.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Only two days.

Mr. Hughes: I am putting it on the generous side. My constituents will be perfectly justified in asking me on 3rd or 4th January, "What are M.P.s doing to justify their existence? Are they justified in having this extended holiday at the present time, with pay and expenses?"

Mr. Robens: Without expenses.

Mr. Hughes: There are other matters that this House should have under consideration. For example, the whole question of Civil Defence is hanging fire. We were told at Question time this afternoon by the Prime Minister of grave


perils that threaten this country in the event of an atom war. Without going into the merits of that, I believe that when this country is told that it can be annihilated in 30 hours, the Government should at least produce their programme and policy for the civil defence of the people.
The question of Formosa has not been cleared up. We would be far better employed a fortnight earlier in January in discussing these matters and giving guidance to the Government on the whole question of foreign affairs in the interest of the people of this country.
I ask for the co-operation of the Leader of the House in this matter, because I wish to be helpful to him. After Questions on Thursdays, the Leader of the House is always being asked by hon. Members on both sides when he can find time to dispose of this or that Motion. Questions affecting Scotland alone justify Scottish Members demanding that this House should come back on 14th January.
I have looked very carefully at the questions on business that were before the House for the month of December, and I find that on 2nd December my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who speaks for Scotland from the Front Bench on this side of the House, raised questions on the Balfour Commission and the Sorn Report, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) raised a question on the problems of education in Scotland. In Scotland, even with the New Year celebrations, all the holidays should be over by 14th January, and our place is in this House.

Mr. William Ross: Provided, of course, that we get our holiday on the 25th.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that my hon. Friend means 25th January and not 25th December. It is not only Members on this side of the House who are pressing the Government to give more time to various matters.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member has apparently misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He was referring, I think, not to Christmas Day but to Burns' night.

Hon. Members: That is what he said.

Mr. Hughes: Only an Irishman could have misunderstood that.
What I submit to the Leader of the House is that the requests from hon. Members behind him, who are loyal supporters of the Government, for more time to discuss business affecting them are worthy of his consideration. Take, for example, the question asked on 2nd December by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith). The hon. Member is not a humble back-bencher; he is chairman of an influential committee called the 1922 Committee. If the Leader of the House does not listen to me, surely he will give a respectful ear to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee. If not, his occupation of his position will be rather precarious.
On 2nd December, the hon. Member for Hertford rose during the discussion following the announcement of the business for the following week, to ask for a debate on the exchange equalisation grants
if not before Christmas, then at any rate soon after our resumption."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 318.]
Although the hon. Member for Hertford is not in his place, I suggest that between 14th and 25th January the Leader of the House could solve his problem by giving a day to the discussion of the question which was raised by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee.
On the same day—2nd December—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raised the question of capital punishment. The Leader of the House has carefully and deliberately side-tracked this issue week after week for the last 12 months. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to come back a fortnight earlier, he would find an opportunity for the House to debate the findings of the Royal Commission—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Which he has promised today.

Mr. Hughes: —which he has promised today; it would accelerate business. There are other reports of committees and commissions that are waiting in the queue, and we are perfectly justified, after a fortnight's or three weeks' relaxation, to come back in order to give the Government time and to help the Leader of the House in solving his difficulty.
On 9th December we had a question from the Government benches by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who asked the Leader of the House:
Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the report of an important committee, presided over by Sir Hugh Beaver, on the subject of atmospheric pollution, or smog? Can he provide early facilities for a debate on this subject?
Although the hon. Member for Kidderminster is not here at the moment, we are justified in bringing his grievance to the Floor of the House.

Sir Thomas Moore: Is the hon. Member not aware that that matter is now the subject of a Private Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)?

Mr. Hughes: I am always pleased to have assistance which is given to me by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). But, if that is the case, our earlier return would provide another fortnight of Parliamentary time so that plenty of facilities could be given for debating the Bill; there would be Fridays, and that would help the Leader of the House too. But the Leader of the House said in reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster:
I am afraid not … The Committee's recommendations are being considered, and he"—
that was a reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—
will make a statement in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1120–1.]
Why not devote a few days, if necessary, to the question of atmospheric pollution? The Leader of the House has been pressed by London Members that this is an urgent matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hughes: There would be no better time to discuss the whole question of atmospheric pollution in London than the second and third weeks in January.
Then, on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) called attention to the fact that
… approximately 150 hon. Members of the House have signed a very strong Motion against …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1987.]

the inadequacy of the National Assistance scales. That raises the question of the Report of the Phillips Committee, which vitally affects the future of the Welfare State. It vitally affects the plight of the old-age pensioners and the injured and incapacitated workmen. The Government ought not to disregard the Phillips Committee's Report. We should have an opportunity of considering it.
I suggest that I have made out what the lawyers call a prima facie case why the House should not go on a sit-down strike when so many urgent matters are demanding its consideration.

Sir T. Moore: Why adjourn at all?

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has made out not merely a prima facie case but, in my view, an overwhelming and shattering case against the Motion, but I should like to bring to the notice of the Leader of the House yet more reasons why it is ill advisable for the House to adjourn for this lengthy period. I do so because he failed to do justice to a question that was put to him a little while ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall).
The Leader of the House will be aware, in connection with the proposed redrawing of constituency boundaries as suggested by the Boundary Commission, that certain seats in London have been altered. The Orders effecting the changes will, presumably, be placed before Her Majesty in Council tomorrow or in the very near future. That will provide an insufficiently short time, goodness knows, for the constituencies concerned to get out the appropriate registers for the London County Council elections which take place on 31st March, but I would draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that only some of the Orders concerning London have been approved by the House and that there is one further Order which will have to be discussed by the House when it resumes.
The position boils down to this, that the London County Council elections will, so far as a certain number of constituencies in London are concerned, be fought on the amended register which there is time to bring into effect on 28th February next, but with regard to London seats in respect of which the draft Orders


have not yet been approved by the House it will be quite impossible—for the Borough of Woolwich, for example, whose fate has not yet been decided—to make the necessary arrangements in between the time when the House, resumes and the time when the February register has to be compiled. I would, therefore, urge the Leader of the House to give some consideration to the disorganisation which will ensue as a result of having some of the London Orders disposed of before the House rises for the Christmas Recess and having the balance still requiring attention when we resume.
The position will be made very difficult if the Leader of the House does not give us this assurance, that so far at least as the London County Council elections are concerned, either they will be fought on the basis that prevailed before the boundary changes were proposed, or at least that the complex situation will not be allowed in which the election has to be fought in one part of London on one basis and in another part of London on an entirely different basis. I would ask the Leader of the House to give some thought to the difficulties that will be created for those who are responsible for the conduct of the London County Council elections on 31st March next.
There is one other reason I should like to adduce in favour of the resumption of the Sittings of the House earlier than Tuesday, 25th January. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that I have for some time been trying to elicit from the Government what they are really trying to do about the tenants who are my constituents and who have the dubious distinction of occupying property formerly owned by Brady, known as Arthur Bertram Waters. The position there is that, in accordance with a decision of the Court of Appeal last June, it was held that the properties of those Irish companies were now forfeit to the Crown. The Attorney-General has announced that stops are being taken to test the validity of this judgment at the earliest possible moment. That means when the legal term resumes, which will be on 11th January. That will be a fortnight before the date on which the House resumes.
This situation may, therefore, arise. As a result of the complicated legal manoeuvres on which the Attorney-General is engaged, it may be that the

commencement of the legal term about a fortnight before the House resumes will have brought about a situation in which those properties which at present belong to the Crown will be handed over to Arthur Bertram Waters, the slum racketeer. That is a situation on which I should like to comment at the time when it takes place, if it does take place, rather than be kept waiting until 25th January. It is very necessary in the interests of my constituents who have been very badly treated by this slum landlord and who look like being equally badly treated if the Attorney-General gets his way that I should have the opportunity of drawing attention to the difficulties that have arisen on 11th January and not 25th January.
For these reasons, I support the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and I do hope that the Leader of the House, before we wish him "Merry Christmas," will take heed of what has been said and do something towards removing the doubts and fears that prevail on this side of the House.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has made a very strong case indeed. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked about the business of the House for the week when we resume, the Leader of the House, almost with contempt of Scottish Members, stated that on the Thursday two Scottish matters of great moment to the people of Scotland would be dealt with in a very little time. Very little time will be allocated for the Crofters (Scotland) Bill.
The Leader of the House suggested that, because we had had the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Crofting Conditions, we should not find much in the Bill to complain about. I understand that the Bill will be available in the Vote Office about now. What the Leader of the House forgets, surely, is that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry contains a Minority Report. Possibly he assumes that we should pay no attention to that Minority Report, but I can assure him that many Scottish Members will certainly deal with the points raised in it. He proposes that we shall have from half-past three until seven o'clock for the discussion on Second Reading of the


Crofters (Scotland) Bill. We do not think that that is time enough.
The Bill will bring wide and sweeping changes to the crofter counties. Whether the Leader of the House recognises it or not, it is being regarded by Scottish Members on both sides of the House as the last chance that any Government will have to cope with recurring Highland problems, and it is believed that if the Government fail to take the chance they will not be able to stop land nationalisation in the Highlands. Surely that is of great importance and the Leader of the House ought not to dismiss the subject by allowing a matter of three hours debate, thinking that we can say all that we want to say in that time.
I tried to get into the debate after the Leader of the House had communicated the week's business, but I was not successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye. Therefore, I take this opportunity to show that, because we are to return after approximately one month, there will be great pressure on the transaction of Scottish business in shorter time than otherwise would have been the case. I do not agree that the Recess is a complete month's holiday. We all have a great deal to do in our constituencies but we have to put first things first, and my constituents intended when they sent me here that Scottish business should be treated and given time in the House on an equal footing with English legislation.
I do not like to raise the nationalist issue, and I do not do so, but unless the Leader of the House and the Front Bench opposite treat us a little better when Scottish business is being transacted, they will certainly create a situation in Scotland which they are not envisaging at the moment. After 7 o'clock on the Thursday of the week in which we resume, we are to deal with the Report of the Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs until 10 o'clock. Many sweeping changes are suggested in the Report. We are to have the Secretary of State for Scotland in charge of certain functions in connection with roads and transport which were formerly carried out by the Minister of Transport.
The Leader of the House was asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison) if he would extend the hour and give more time

for the discussion of this most comprehensive Report. He dismissed the question with no consideration whatsoever. He gave no satisfaction to his hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If the right hon. Gentleman did so, I am willing to sit down and allow him to tell the House that the Rule will be suspended and that we shall be able to debate Scottish affairs for perhaps two hours longer on that night. I can assure him that we shall utilise the time very fully if we have that opportunity.
If we are to be put into this position in which we are having Scottish business crammed into odd corners to suit the Leader of the House and the Front Bench opposite, we shall need to seize every opportunity of raising the matter, as we are doing on this occasion. I appeal to the Leader of the House most sincerely to give some consideration to this question. Would he not at least agree that on the Thursday we should give a further hour or so to discussing the Report of the Royal Commission? If the right hon. Gentleman is going to be quite adamant and not give an inch at all, I am afraid that we shall have to continue, in whatever fashion we can, to take what action we can to bring to the notice of our constituents in Scotland how Scottish affairs have been dealt with in the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: I rise to oppose the views which have been put by my hon. Friends, and I wish to explain to them why I do so. It is certainly embarrassing to me to find myself in partial agreement with the Government. I hasten to say to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that it is not because I disagree with him on any of the issues which he hoped to see raised if the House were called together earlier. He mentioned capital punishment, he referred to Formosa, he referred to the international situation and to many other topics; and indeed on all of them I am in full agreement with him. It may be that I should be in full agreement with him even on the issue of education in Scotland if I knew anything about it.
The reason why I disagree with him about the earlier recall of Parliament is that my hon. Friend does not seem to understand or appreciate from what has happened in the last few days that it does not matter a fig whether or not the House


of Commons debates a subject, because the Government have made it clear that they pay no attention to what the House of Commons says. We had a perfectly clear illustration of that in connection with the Boundary Commission's Report. We had reasons given at Question time today which make me fear a repetition of the same thing if we meet earlier in January.
We had a statement at Question time that the Attorney-General had dealt in the House of Commons with the issues which were raised in the court. If the Attorney-General had come to the debate on the Boundary Commission's Report with a fully prepared speech and had stated the case for the Government's acceptance of the Commission's recommendations, that tribute to the Attorney-General would have been perfectly justified, but the House knows that he did nothing of the kind. He made no effort at all to give the views of the Law Officer of the Crown as to whether the Boundary Commission had carried out its functions or not.
All he did was to come in at the fag end of the debate, after we had had a winding up speech for the Government from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The fact that the Government put up that right hon. Gentleman to deal with this issue was a pretty good way of showing the Government's contempt of the House of Commons. After all, if one is to insult the House of Commons one might as well choose a Stuart to do it. That was how the Government dealt with the debate. The fact is that the Government did not choose to discuss the issue at all and enable the Attorney-General to present his views.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Has the hon. Gentleman finished?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I might be allowed to say something. We might get back to the Question before the House.

Mr. Foot: I am sorry if you feel, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am not addressing myself to the Question. I was arguing that it does not really matter whether the House of Commons meets on 25th January or 25th February or 25th March

or 25th December, 1955 or 1956, if we are to be treated as we have been treated in the past two or three days. If we are to judge the Government's conduct when we meet again by the way in which they have behaved in the last few days, as I should have thought we would be perfectly entitled to do, I would have thought that it was quite useless to ask that the House should meet earlier and that it would be better to propose that we should close up the House of Commons and forget about it.
If anybody thinks that that is an exaggeration, I would quote the answer which was given to me in debate by the Home Secretary, in reply to a question which I put to him. I asked whether he would explain why, in the case of the constituency with which I am associated, he had not taken another and much simpler course to deal with the problem. This was his reply:
I am not in a position to tell the hon. Member for Devonport what he asks. I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not possible for me to know all the details of all these cases. I am simply saying that the Commission"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already asked the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House. What he is saying has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing, which is when we should return after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Foot: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would allow me to complete the quotation from the Home Secretary's speech I think it would help. I am in the middle of one of his sentences and I should not like to cut the hon. and gallant Gentleman off in the middle of a sentence. If I quote the remainder of the sentence I am sure you will appreciate the relevance of my argument, because this is what the Home Secretary said:
I am simply saying that the Commission, in its judgment, followed out the instructions given to it, by the Rule and in accordance with the Statute, and I do not see how the House can do otherwise than support it.
In other words, the Home Secretary said that it was not necessary for the House of Commons to pass judgment. He remarked:
I do not see how the House can do otherwise than support it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2055.]
"It" refers to the Boundary Commission.
It is now proposed that we should meet on 26th January to continue this farce—to continue proceedings under which the Home Secretary will get up and make exactly the same reply to every hon. Member as that which I have quoted. Thus, as far as I can see, it is quite useless to suggest coming back on 15th January—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: But, if we came back on the 14th or 15th January, the Home Secretary would have an opportunity for apologising and amplifying the statement in a way which would satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Foot: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is not aware of how this business is done. It has been fixed up by the Boundary Commission, the Conservative Central Office and the Cabinet. These are the three bodies which rule this country, and I would have seen some sense in a proposal by my hon. Friend for an earlier meeting of the Conservative Central Office to see whether it is not possible to effect a change in any of the Orders which we shall discuss on 26th January; or, more seriously, if my hon. Friend suggested that the Boundary Commission should reconsider this matter during the month's Adjournment—it is perfectly possible for them to do so; indeed, it might be advisable even to propose a Motion suggesting we meet five days later if the Commission does not feel it can go to work immediately after Christmas—to see if something can be done to satisfy the sense of grievance and outrage which prevails in so many parts of this country, as is shown by the representations which have been made to this House during the past few weeks.
The Boundary Commission could at any rate hold the public inquiries so that the House of Commons could have an opportunity, when we meet again, to judge these things after local spokesmen in all the different areas have had a chance of putting their viewpoint.

Mr. Victor Yates: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that we on this side of the House should abdicate our responsibilities because the Government have chosen a dictatorial policy?

Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that any of my hon. Friends should abdicate

his responsibilities, but what I think we should do is illustrate to the House and to the country exactly what is happening in this case. I hope my hon. Friend will be with me when we have the all-night Sessions on our return to discuss these Orders, and I hope that every one of them will be fought because that is the only way in which we can show to the country that in dealing with the recommendations of this Boundary Commission, we are debating a matter which, after all, lies at the basis of our democratic and representative system.
It is only by debating the matter in full and by illustrating the fact that the House of Commons has been denied its rights by the Government that we shall show to the country how grievously this Government have departed from the traditions of this Parliament, and how sorely they have failed to listen to the complaints of tens of thousands of citizens from every part of the land, who think they have been robbed of their rights and Parliament of its privileges by the behaviour of this tyrannical Government.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) began by expressing his regret that on this question he should find himself at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). May I begin by expressing my own regret that I should differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, a thing which has not happened now for a number of years.
I always try, I suppose with indifferent success, to be a good House of Commons man, and in that endeavour I always, when I support opposition of this kind, do it with regret. I do it with regret now. I think the public is very easily misled in matters of this kind. They are apt, on the one hand, to under-estimate the amount of real hard work that Members of Parliament do in the time that the House is in Session. On the other hand, they are apt to regard it, as my hon. Friend so rightly said, in the light that when the House decides to go off for a month Members of Parliament all go to the South of France and sport themselves there in the interval. Of course, they do nothing of the kind. Such vacations as the House permits are very well earned and most of them are very well spent by the majority of the Members.
The other reason why I always support opposition of this kind with regret is that such opposition mostly comes from the Opposition side of the House. That side of the House is ex hypothesi in a minority. Therefore, the Opposition is bound to be unsuccessful, if not futile. So one attracts to oneself a reputation for hard work and virtue on the cheap, knowing that one's endeavours are likely to be defeated anyhow when the time comes.
When all possible account has been taken of all these considerations, I still think the House would be very ill advised on this occasion to adjourn for so long. While I appreciate to the full the exquisite ironies of my hon. Friend's argument, I know he did not mean a word of it, and he would be the last Member of this House to allow a dictatorial or tyrannical Government to get away with it by dismissing the House of Commons precisely as though the Cabinet consisted entirely of Members of the Stuart family.
One has only to look at the business announced by the Leader of the House for the first week after we come back to realise how wrong it is to wait so long. May I at the beginning refer to a matter which he mentioned. The House is at the moment for the first time in all the years that I have been a Member without a Select Committee on Estimates. To some extent that is my fault. I object to it being appointed for reasons which are widely understood in the House and for reasons which, I venture to think, are to some slight extent shared also by both sides.
That, however, is not a situation which can go on for ever. This House could not do its work without a Select Committee on Estimates. The primary function of the House of Commons, the function which makes it the sovereign assembly of this country, is its control over finance. It exercises control over finance in the first place through the Select Committee on Estimates. Therefore, it is intolerable that the House of Commons should go on for long without a Select Committee on Estimates, no matter of what Members it is constituted.
What did the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say? I think I am quoting him correctly, if not verbatim—"I hope we will find time to deal with that question, and with another similar question about a Joint Select Committee

of both Houses, during this first week." I wonder when? Hon. and right hon. Members will remember his recital of the work to be done on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the first week in which we come back, 25th, 26th and 27th January.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to show sufficient consideration of the arguments that are being advanced by replying to them at all, I ask him in all seriousness on what did he base his hope that those matters could be dealt with in the first week, having regard to the fact that they are not exempted business, having regard to the other business which he proposes for those three days, and having regard to the undesirability of dealing with such a question in the middle of the night on some Motion to suspend the Rule for that purpose? It will be an intolerable position. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot have any sound hope that the House will be able to deal with all this business during those first three days. But if he has any hope at all, I can tell him now that it is a forlorn one.
What else does the House propose to deal with that week? On 26th January it proposes to deal with the remaining Orders required to put into operation the Report of the Boundary Commission. I recognise to the full that it would be completely out of order to say a single word about the merits of that matter, and I do not propose to do so. I am not the representative of a constituency whose boundaries have been affected by the Report, and there are many right hon. and hon. Members of this Chamber better qualified than I am, when the proper time comes, to deal with the merits of that matter.
However, it is not out of order to point out that some of the undesirable features associated with dealing with the matter in the way which the right hon. Gentleman proposes arise out of the handicap of time. It is clear that if the Government want these Orders to go through and want the electoral registers to be prepared on the basis of these Orders in time for the local government elections, then they will have to get these Orders quickly if they are to get them at all.

Mr. Foot: As the Government know that the Orders will go through anyhow, why cannot they print the registers now?

Mr. Silverman: Because the merit of a rubber stamp is that until the rubber stamp is on the document is not valid.

Dr. H. Morgan: That is a poor answer.

Mr. Silverman: It is a sound answer. The argument of my hon. Friend is that the Government are treating the approval of the House of Commons merely as an automatic rubber stamp to the decisions of the Boundary Commission, and he asked, why not do without it? I say that the Government cannot do without it, even if it is a rubber stamp, because this is the only place where they can get their rubber stamp. I am pointing out that they have to deal with the matter in this way, with a three-line Whip, and to sit all through the night.
Although there is no merit in the argument, and although the argument ex hypothesi will not be allowed to affect the result, the Government have to deal with it in this way because of the time factor. The Government could give themselves much more latitude with regard to time, and therefore with regard to the mode of dealing with this matter, if they refrained from sending the House of Commons packing for five weeks at Christmas. Nobody else in the country gets so long. If we did not have all that time, no one would be better pleased. I am sure that the Government, in this situation, need quite a lot of time to look round, to try to find out before we come back where they are, because at the moment they do not seem to know.

Mr. William Keenan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What is to be the position regarding the important matter of the National Assistance Regulations? Will you allow the time for that debate to be extended beyond seven o'clock in order to enable those Members who still want to speak, and those who are responsible for conducting that business, to do so?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As far as I am concerned, seven o'clock conveys nothing to me. The National Assistance Regulations are exempted business and the House can discuss them until seven o'clock tomorrow morning if it so wishes.

Mr. Silverman: I can assure my hon. Friend that no one is more conscious

than I am of a situation which develops frequently, where one important matter which has to be discussed gets in the way of another important matter and one can easily draw the line in the wrong place. However, this is not one of those occasions. The National Assistance Regulations are exempted from the Standing Order about the Sittings of the House, and if my hon. Friend wants to debate them all night and until noon tomorrow I shall be ready to sit up with him and debate them with him. There is absolutely nothing which my hon. Friend, or anybody else, wants to say about the National Assistance Regulations that is being in any way limited—

Mr. Keenan: It is for others that I am speaking.

Mr. Silverman: —by anything that we are doing now. If my hon. Friend were proposing to divide the House against the National Assistance Regulations, then it would be important to get on to them at an early hour before everybody goes home. If my hon. Friend assures me that his opposition to the National Assistance Regulations is as bitter as mine is, and that he proposes to express it not only in a speech but in the Division Lobby, then I will co-operate with him in getting on to that business as early as possible by bringing this other matter to an end. But if he does not propose to do that, if he only wants to make a speech—

Mr. Keenan: I have already made one.

Mr. Silverman: —if he wants merely to protect the rights of other hon. Members to make speeches, they have the next 48 hours in which they can do so, because there is nothing to stop them. Now I will return to the point I was making. I say seriously to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that it is clear now that there is to be no other tribunal which can decide whether the proposed Orders under the Report of the Boundary Commission are fair and equitable as between political groups within this House of Commons or not.

Mr. William Warbey: My hon. Friend ought not to pre-judge the possibility that there may still be some other matters in relation to the way in which the Boundary Commission has acted which have not yet been tested in


the courts and that some parties may wish to challenge Orders which have not yet been brought before the House.

Mr. Silverman: My hon. Friend is right. I agree with him completely. I was basing my argument on the view which was expressed by the Leader of the House when he made his statement. In the Government's view—we have to base our arrangements on that view—this is the only place where those questions can be determined. If that is so, it becomes all the more important that the House should be seen by the public as a whole to be acting in a judicial spirit. The public will not think it is behaving judicially if 30 or 40 Orders are rushed through the House one after the other during a night sitting with the aid of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) recently called "a dictatorial three-line Whip."

Mr. Nigel Fisher: The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the Division list to see that there was pairing last Thursday night. There was no three-line Whip at all.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman may be right about the pairing—I do not know—but is he really saying that no three-line Whip was in existence?

Mr. Fisher: It was not in operation.

Mr. Silverman: I did not ask whether it was in operation; I asked whether a three-line Whip existed. The Leader of the House will probably tell us whether there was one, and, what is much more important, whether there will be one when we come back. If the right hon. Gentleman said, "We are prepared to leave the matter to a free vote of the House when the matter next arises," a great deal of the opposition from this side of the House to the whole matter and a great deal of the opposition to the Motion now before the House would be removed. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to say now that it is not proposed to use any dictatorial methods of any kind, by means of a three-line, two-line or one-line or any other kind of Whip, but that he will leave it to each hon. Member to vote on each Order according to his own conscientious judgment after listening to the arguments—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going a little beyond the subject of the date upon which the House should return after the Recess.

Mr. Silverman: When I have finished my sentence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think you will see that that is not so. I was about to say that in those circumstances there would be no need to object to the House going away for so long. If the right hon. Gentleman will say now what I have suggested, he can have the Motion without opposition; but he will not say that because he is determined to get every scrap of party political advantage that he can out of the debate.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Surely the Boundary Commission is not a party political matter.

Mr. Silverman: It is if the Government try to force through an Order by means of a three-line Whip. By that very fact it becomes party policy. If not, what is the three-line Whip for?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope we can get back to the date of our return.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was diverted by interruptions. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want it to be a shabby political manœuvre and wishes the House to exercise a judicial judgment, he should give us the assurance for which I have asked, and then he can have his Motion.

Mr. John Rankin: There are now three proposals about the return of the House. There is the proposal announced by the Leader of the House on behalf of the Government that we should return on 25th January; there is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that we should return on 11th January; and there is the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) that at 5 p.m. tomorrow we shall have reached the point of no return.
I support very strongly indeed the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, and I do so on one particular ground. I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) about the repeated shabby treatment of Scottish affairs in the House, and I support all that has been said by my hon. Friend the


Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It is worth noting that the case put up by my hon. Friends has been so strong that it has completely silenced hon. Members opposite. There has not been one speech in support of the Government's proposal that we should not return until 25th January.
It is appalling that when the Government make a proposal not a single hon. Member on the other side of the House, although the Government are asking for more production from industrial workers, dares to support a proposal for more production in the House. Hon. Members opposite have been silent all the afternoon. I hope the Leader of the House will not follow that bad example, but will avail himself of the opportunity of saying a word in reply when this inter-party debate concludes.
I am asking that the House should return a fortnight earlier than the Government propose for a simple but very serious reason. No one on either side of the House will deny for a moment that the whole complex of international relationships has deteriorated immensely during the last week or so. Since this House agreed, despite the strong opposition on this side of the House, to sign the Paris Agreements there is no doubt that Russia has been talking in a firmer tone than ever before.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be quite true, but it does not come anywhere near the date we come back from our holidays.

Mr. Rankin: It might bring us back earlier and that is the reason I am suggesting we do so.
Because of this development, Russia is already talking about denouncing her pact with France. Already, she is beginning to hint that she might denounce the Anglo-Soviet Pact. Are we to be on holiday if a calamity of that nature occurs? In view of that deterioration, it is imperative that this House should as closely as possible keep in touch with what are undoubtedly potentially important developments in world affairs.
I want, in conclusion, to direct attention to a rather remarkable omission, and I hope that the Leader of the House—I am sorry to interrupt a conversation, but I am referring to the right hon. Gentle-

man; if he is searching for advice from the Patronage Secretary, all very well—will have something to say about this problem. In my experience it is usual, when we go into Recess, for the Government to indicate that, if affairs demand it, the House will be recalled. Today, we have had no such assurance. In view of the situation that can quite easily develop before 25th January, if the Government cannot accept the proposal so powerfully advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire can they not assure us that, if affairs either at home or abroad demand it, the House will be recalled to meet the contingency or contingencies that may have arisen? That is the very least the Government can do and I hope that the Leader of the House will now give us, at least, the assurance for which I have asked.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I want to put a point of view not put in this short debate and I want to put it shortly. I submit that we have a duty not only to this House, but a duty to the country, also. We have a duty to our constituents and a duty to ourselves. That duty involves a considerable Recess. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) put his case with that persuasiveness which is characteristic of him. But some points seemed to be inconsistent with what I thought was his knowledge of the duties of a Member of Parliament to his constituents and to the country. What he said did not demonstrate that close knowledge of his duties as a Member which he usually shows.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I may say that I live in my constituency and know it better than most people.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Far be it from me to in any way disparage the great services which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire indefatigably gives to his constituency and to this House. But the point that I am making is that the arguments which he has adduced in favour of the proposition that he put before us today were inconsistent—and inconsistent was the word I used—with those great services which he characteristically gives to this House and to his constituents.
He must know that Members of Parliament have a great deal to do outside this House, duties which they could not


adequately perform if there were not gaps, and considerable gaps, in their attendances in this House. They have to make reports to their constituencies. They have to make contact with their constituents to undeceive them about the propaganda ladled out daily by Tory newspapers. They have to correct various other misrepresentations.
On the constructive side, they have to hold meetings with their constituents, with old-age pensioners, for instance, to explain some of the extraordinary speeches made on the other side of the House in yesterday's debate. They have to meet the women's sections, women who do such great and noble work in the constituencies. They have to meet leagues of youth and hold ward meetings. It is obvious that there is a great deal to be said on both sides about this proposition. In Aberdeen, we have a toast which runs like this:
Happy to meet,
Sorry to part,
Happy to meet again.
That is the aphorism or toast which is applicable to the present situation. Having done our work here—I hope faithfully and well—we are happy to part to be happy, in turn, to meet our constituents and to give them the benefit of our reports of what we have done in the past weeks and to give us the refreshment and happiness of meeting them. Perhaps this Recess is more necessary than other recesses, because of the way in which the work of this House has degenerated during the past few weeks.
The last example was the Reports of the Boundaries Commissions. It is not relevant to discuss that now, but for the purposes of my argument it is relevant to point out that an all-night Sitting was inflicted on the House because business with regard to the Boundary Commission was so mismanaged. Mistakes were made, conflicts with the law courts were precipitated and, indeed, there was created a very undesirable constitutional position vis-à-vis the Crown.
From all this it would seem that the Recess is essential, unless we are to have somebody like a business manager and not a Leader of the House who perhaps is, or may perhaps be—I do not want to be offensive to him—like that character of whom Dryden said:

In the front rank of those did Zimri stand …
A man so various that he seemed to be
Not one, but all mankind's epitome:
Stiff in opinions, always in the wrong,
Was everything by starts and nothing long;
But, in the course of one revolving moon,
Was chemist, fiddler, statesman, and buffoon.
That is not, of course, the kind of Leader of the House that we have or want. Our thoughts go back to another Leader of the House, the late Sir Stafford Cripps.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not quite see how we can discuss Leaders of the House, past or present, on this Motion.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am discussing it, if I may say so with respect—I do not in any way want to infringe the rules of order—for the purpose of showing that the Recess may perhaps be necessary, because we have not got a Leader of the House like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), or like the late Sir Stafford Cripps.
My hon. Friends have adumbrated the many Scottish topics which would urge us to an earlier return. Only today there is an instance on the Order Paper with regard to the Army Bill, an essential matter which should have been dealt with before the Recess. It has not been dealt with and that fact is an argument strongly in favour of the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire.
On the Order Paper today there were two valuable and important suggestions about the Army Bill in its relation to Scotland, and I suggest that they are relevant to this debate. There were two Questions of mine which were not dealt with. One was:
To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to alter the terms of the Army Act so as to ensure that a British soldier who is charged with a civil offence. …

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that they are relevant. I do not see how they can be relevant to the question of the date when we should come back.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I was arguing that there is much to be said on both sides for the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that the Recess should not be so long. I was giving as an instance of


that the fact that the Army Bill, which should have been dealt with before the Recess, has not been dealt with and, indeed, that valuable suggestions with regard to the relation of the Army Bill to Scottish subjects have not been dealt with.
Now that your have assumed the Chair, Mr. Speaker, may I put the point to you? If you rule that it is out of order I shall not pursue the matter. I was referring to two Questions on the topic of the Army Bill which were not reached today. I refer you to the Questions. One was:
To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will take steps to alter the terms of the Army Act so as to ensure that a British soldier who is charged with a civil offence not specified in the Army Act while serving in Scotland …

Mr. Speaker: That is quite out of order on this Motion.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. I will not say another word about it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Would not the hon. and learned Member be entitled to argue that if we came back earlier the House could discuss the Army Bill earlier?

Mr. Speaker: That would be going into far too much detail.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am not attempting to contest your Ruling in any way, Mr. Speaker, but the argument that I was venturing to submit was that the Army Bill is a Measure of fundamental importance. It was on the Order Paper to be dealt with before the Recess. Because of the unfortunate ineptitude and mismanagement with reference to the Boundary Commissions, it was not reached. It has to be postponed until after the Recess.
That would seem to me to be an argument in favour of the House not going into Recess for a very long period. Then the two amendments which I was suggesting, and mention of which you have ruled out of order for the moment, could be considered earlier. However, I now leave all these arguments.
I ask hon. Members to look at the question in perspective, to regard it in due proportion and to realise that a fortnight or three weeks at the outside would have been long enough for the Recess which we could use in meeting our constituents, in refreshing ourselves by our contacts with them in making our reports to them

and doing our duty to them, to the country and to the House. In my submission, there is much to be said for the proposition of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I hope that we can now bring the discussion to a close. It is slightly ironical that one of the reasons adduced by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was that if we had a shorter Recess we should have more time to discuss the National Assistance Regulations. That is exactly what we might have been doing.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I did not say that. I said the Phillips Report.

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman said that as well. He says so many things that he forgets what he does say, but I take note of his remarks when they suit my argument. He said that, and we could have been doing it for 1½ hours, but we have been deprived of that time.
This sort of debate is very apt to occur and it always arises from the Opposition side, and sometimes apparently, as today, from the "opposition" to the Opposition. Two hon. Members who spoke, had they received the Whip of their party, would no doubt have been aware that this was an agreed arrangement, that we should rise this year for the same time as we do every year at this period.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that we have been deprived of time, thereby implying that the time taken by this short debate has taken away from the time available for our discussion of the National Assistance Regulations. I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. Is not this exempted business? Cannot we go on ad lib and ad nauseam?

Mr. Speaker: The Regulations are exempted business, but I hope that the House will not go on ad nauseam.

Mr. Crookshank: I was not necessarily dealing with the question of the global time, but with the time which hon. Members generally think is most valuable, in the early part of the day when more attention can be given to what they have said, both inside and outside the House. There is much truth in the old adage that
absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Of what?

Mr. Crookshank: I can only hope that after the personal remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to make about me I shall feel, in a month's time, a little fonder of him than I feel now.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Mr. Hector Hughesrose —

Mr. Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman made offensive remarks. I do not want any more of them. One does not have to be rude and personally insulting.
The speeches made outlined a whole series of topics on which the House could engage itself. Of course it could. We could all think of topics not only for every day of the year but for a year twice as long, if one could imagine such a thing.
One must maintain a sense of proportion. The Christmas Recess has, for years, been for about 32 or 33 days. It varies according to the actual incidence of Christmas Day itself. We are taking exactly the same time this year as in any other year. I was asked why nothing had been said about recalling the House. It really is not necessary every time to state the obvious. There is now a Standing Order of the House, No. 112, which would be put into effect should the necessity arise. I hope that that satisfies hon. Gentlemen.
It only remains for me to say that I hope that we can get on to our next business and, as I may not have another opportunity, to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th January.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, so that endorsement of order cheques and similar instruments received for collection by the banker, of whom the payee is a customer, shall be unnecessary.
I apologise for detaining the House for another 10 minutes before getting on to the main business, but I did not know that it would be two hours after the usual time that such a Motion is taken.
This short Bill would, I think, be acceptable to the House both from its simplicity and from the economy which it would effect in business, commerce, accountancy and in the professions; in fact, in almost every sphere of commercial, administrative and private monetary activity. It would provide that a cheque collected by a bank for its customer would be deemed to be endorsed in blank by that customer if and when it is specially crossed by the bank, and, furthermore, that such a cheque when honoured would be prima facie evidence of the receipt of the money by the payee.
I claim no originality whatever for the ideas on which this Bill is based. They have been discussed for many years in banking, trading and professional circles. In particular, the ideas are associated with the name of Mr. G. O. Papworth, who happens to be a constituent of mine and who, from great knowledge of banking administration, so successfully advanced this proposition about four years ago that the Committee of London Clearing Bankers appointed a subcommittee to report on the subject. That report has not been published, but it is no secret that it was very thorough and very much in detail, and unanimously recommended legislation on the lines which I have indicated for this Bill.
The Bill would occupy only about a dozen lines of print and would be in the form of an addendum to Section 77 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Hon. and right hon. Members who are lucky enough to receive a cheque made payable to themselves or order, know that before they can put it into their bank


they have to turn the cheque over and write their name on the back of it. The real purpose of writing one s name on the back of a cheque is to negotiate it to a third person, but, in fact, only 3 per cent, of all the order cheques issued are ever negotiated to a third person. The other 97 per cent. are paid straight into the bank account of the payee. The writing of one's name on the back of such a cheque is merely done to provide a safeguard to the bank under certain circumstances.
I am sure that hon. Members would not begrudge the time spent in endorsing the few cheques which they are individually lucky enough to receive if that endorsement gives their banks a legal safeguard. But that 97 per cent. of all the cheques which I have mentioned which require that endorsement amount to no fewer than 600 million cheques a year. Those hon. Members associated with business concerns will know the time taken in endorsing cheques and the consequent expenditure of salaries and wages on that unproductive work. Reliable calculations reveal that in commerce and business about 2½ million man-hours are spent in this unproductive work and about £1 million a year at least are spent in wages.
The endorsements on those 600 million cheques require examination by two banks, the collecting bank and the paying bank, and thus there are about 1,100 million to 1,200 million examinations of endorsements each year. In time, represented by money, that costs the banks about £500,000 a year. Then there is the further trouble and expense of the two million cheques which are dishonoured each year because of something being wrong with the endorsements. Quite obviously, if we can abolish the requirement for endorsement where that requirement is not really necessary, and yet retain it for its true and useful purpose of negotiating a cheque, there would be a very real saving of expense both to commerce and to the banks and, not least, to Government Departments; for this business of endorsement costs the General Post Office £19,000 a year.
Fortunately, the abolition of that requirement can be done in a very simple manner by saying that something else which is always done to a cheque shall be deemed to be that endorsement. That

"something else" is the special crossing of a cheque by the collecting bank to itself. When I say "special crossing," there is nothing special about it in the sense of its being abnormal. Hon. Members will know if they have ever looked at the paid cheques coming back from their banks that there is a rubber stamping on the face of the cheque with the name of the bank between the two "crossing" lines. That is the special crossing of the cheque by the collecting bank.
This Bill would provide that that special crossing could be deemed to be an endorsement of the bank's customer who pays in the cheque. In addition to the saving in time and expense, there would be the added advantage that the cheque would not be a bearer cheque from the time it leaves the office desk to the time it reaches the bank's counter, as it is at present and is liable to mis-appropriation.
I would not take up the time of the House without first having obtained the considered views of responsible bodies on this subject, such as associations of traders and of manufacturers; societies representing solicitors, accountants, secretaries and other professions, and the banks and bank staffs and many others. I am grateful to those responsible bodies for the very careful study which they have given to this subject. I will not weary the House by quoting the results, but I ask the House to take it from me that they were overwhelmingly in favour of these proposals.
Perhaps more important were the constructive proposals which emerged from the discussions I have had with those responsible bodies and which improved upon the proposals I originally framed. I feel confident that, with the permission of the House, I can present a Bill embodying an accumulation of knowledge and practical experience gathered in this way.
Some misgivings have, of course, been expressed. In particular, it has been asked what effect these proposals would have on the practice, now popular, of the printed receipts on the backs of cheques. The Bill would not prevent the continued use of such receipts if persons desired that, and desired to make the necessary arrangements with their banks for that type of receipt which requires to be signed "in full and final discharge of


such-and-such an account." But so far as the simple receipt is concerned, I trust that the House will approve the inclusion in the Bill of a provision that a cheque so specially crossed, deemed to be endorsed as I have described, would be sufficient evidence of receipt of the money by the payee named on the cheque and that any further receipt would be superfluous.
Many other—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time."]—there is one minute more—problems have been raised and studied and solved in these discussions. We cannot afford to employ people on this non-productive work of signing the backs of 600 million cheques a year, and we cannot afford, in modern commerce, to waste the time of our people in this fantastic and farcical fetish of endorsement.

Mr. Norman Smith: I hope that the House will not give the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) leave to introduce a Bill of this kind. In 10 minutes he could not expect to make a complete case, but to be able to do so in favour of a Measure representing so drastic a departure from accepted practice he ought to be able to prove that there would be some saving of labour to banks and other institutions concerned if the necessity for the endorsement of cheques were done away with. I submit that it is no use putting forward astronomical figures about the number of hours spent by bank clerks in examining endorsements I assert that any bank clerk worth his salt has only to glance at my signature in order to do his job.
Cheques are much the most important part of our currency. It would not be a proper thing for the House to give leave for the introduction of a Private Member's Bill which would have the effect of increasing the possibility of fraud in the handling of currency transactions. If a Bill of this nature has to be brought in, it should be the responsibility of the Treasury to do that. I deeply regret that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here—and for another reason. The hon. Member referred to endorsements and receipts on the backs of cheques. If he is right in what he said about such receipts causing trouble, one effect of his Bill would be to deprive the Revenue of some of the money which it now gets

from the stamps which have to be put on the backs of cheques when they are receipted.
On the hon. Member's own submission, the only beneficiaries of a Bill such as this would be the banks and other commercial houses. But most of us are interested in banks as consumers and users. It is the custom of banks—irrationally, and quite without justification, in my opinion—to charge their customers for keeping their accounts. Is it proposed that the banks shall diminish the services which they give in return for the charges they make? I do not pay bank charges. I made so much fuss that my bank no longer charges me, but most people accept the charges uncomplainingly. The hon. Member now proposes that the services rendered by the banks shall be abated to this extent, and that to save supposedly redundant and unnecessary labour there should be an abatement of the element of security.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting me. I did not suggest in any way that there would be an abatement of security. I believe that the Bill would provide greater security.

Mr. Smith: I submit that there would be an abatement of security.
This country has always been ahead of the rest of the world in the use of cheques. In percentage of population, more Englishmen habitually use cheques to pay their bills and carry through their transactions than people in any other country. We have become accustomed to the idea. The use of cheques should be extended widely among the wage-earning section of the population. I can see a great advantage in that. It would be to the great convenience of the Government and of everybody in the years that lie ahead. I hope that the hon. Member will be refused permission to bring in this Measure, which will not help ordinary bank customers in any way and which, if it helps the banks, will do so at the expense of security.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Page, Mr. Holt, Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Stevens, Sir W. Wakefield and Mr. G. Wilson.

BILL OF EXCHANGE ACT, 1882 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, so that endorsement of order cheques and similar instruments received for collection by the banker, of whom the payee is a customer, shall be unnecessary, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th February and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20th December],
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

Question again proposed.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not apologise for bringing the attention of the House back to the consideration of the position of a very large number of people who have no banking accounts and are not concerned with signatures on the backs of cheques, but who are much more concerned where the next meal is to come from. Even at this late hour it is right that we should continue to debate these National Assistance Regulations, because I can think of no more urgent matter for debate—not after but before the Recess.
We had a good debate yesterday, during which the speeches of my hon. Friends proved conclusively how miserable and inadequate are the proposals put forward by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Most hon. Members opposite skated round the subject of the inadequacy of the increases. What I thought remarkable was the fact that neither from any back bench Member opposite nor from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—in his extremely slight and perfunctory commendation of these scales—did we have an answer to the two main questions in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House. We want to know, first, why the increase is limited to 2s. 6d. and, secondly, why those people who, on everyone's admission, are the worst off will get the least help? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer those questions tonight.
The Government have been trying to justify this very small increase in the National Assistance scales by referring to the Interim Index of Retail Prices. As far as I know, the only argument put forward by them is that the increase in Assistance scales equals the increase in the cost-of-living index. The best comment upon the Government's attitude to the problem of old-age pensioners was that made by one of our most notable


cartoonists, Vicky, who portrayed the Minister of Food as a latterday Marie Antoinette, saying, of the old-age pensioners, "If they cannot afford bread, let them eat statistics." The one piece of humanity which we can attribute to the right hon. Gentleman is that the statistics which he serves up to the old-age pensioners are not served raw but are invariably cooked beforehand.
If one looks at the figures contained in the Interim Index of Retail Prices, it must be conceded to the right hon. Gentleman—there is no doubt that he will be including it in his speech—that the Index has increased in total by 6·6 per cent. since April, 1952, when the last National Assistance Regulations were moved in the House, whereas, under these proposals, the scale for a single person is up by 6·8 per cent. and for a married couple by 7·1 per cent. I have no doubt that the Government will claim that the increase in these scales, expressed as a percentage, is slightly better than the increase shown in the Interim Index of Retail Prices.
When I see some of the propaganda circulated by the Conservative Central Office in the constituencies, especially in those where there is a pending by-election, I am reminded of the truth of the ancient adage that "Figures cannot lie, but liars can figure." There is no part of the statistical picture where this is more true than this question of the cost of living and its relation to pensions, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is quite inappropriate to take the general cost-of-living index for measuring the cost of living of the old-age pensioners.
Therefore, I hope that he will not use that argument tonight, but, if he does, I think he will be in some difficulty, because when last the House debated the National Assistance Regulations in April, 1952, we had a speech by the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance, who has recently been translated to the Foreign Office, a translation which has been widely welcomed, and not least by the old-age pensioners. The hon. Gentleman said it was quite inappropriate to use the cost-of-living index in relation to Assistance scales, and continued:

… I would remind the House that these scale rates are supplemented by a rent allowance, and, therefore, in dealing with the impact of the cost of living, it is not the all-item index that is relevant, but the specific indices for food, clothing, fuel and light and household goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1364.]
I think it is right to ask what has been the percentage increase in the cost of living since the scales were last increased in April, 1952. If we take food items alone, we find that they increased by 11·2 per cent., which is considerably more than the percentage by which the right hon. Gentleman has increased the scales. If we take fuel and light, which occupy a very important part in the budget of any old-age pensioner, we find that they have increased by 8·4 per cent., which is again more than the increase in the scales. But, of course, even these are average figures, and I can only use Government statistics. I wish we had better statistics about the cost of living position of the old-age pensioners.
If we take the figures from the Government's own published statistics, we find that bread and flour increased by 3·5 per cent. from April, 1952; meat, bacon, ham and fish, taken as a group, have increased by 11 per cent.; milk, cheese and eggs by 13 per cent.; butter, margarine and cooking fat by 34 per cent.; and tea and sugar by 48 per cent., since the last increases were made in these Assistance Board's scales. These are figures relating to last October, and take no account of the most recent increases which have been announced in the price of tea, which will put up that cost-of-living index figure by more than 50 per cent. Against that, we have these Assistance scales proposing an increase of 2s. 6d. for a single person.
In the last day or two, I have been studying some of the actual cost-of-living budgets of old-age pensioners on Merseyside. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has really studied any of these budgets himself, but I know that many have been submitted to him. If he has studied them, it will be quite impossible for him to commend this miserable increase of 2s. 6d. One thing that came out of these budgets were the figures of the cost of the food bought by old-age pensioners in Liverpool. An average was taken of the food consumption of old-age pensioners, and these goods were priced in the local shops in Liverpool. They showed that food


bought in 1952 for an expenditure of 14s. 4¾d. cost 15s. 8½d. in 1953 and 18s. 4d. in 1954—an increase of about 4s. for an average old-age pensioner in his food costs since 1952, when the right hon. Gentleman last increased these scales.
The Interim Index of Retail Prices is quite irrelevant to our needs. We see that it allows for about 400 points for food out of a total of 928 points, whereas we know that most people on National Assistance spend far more than half their income on food and fuel. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, before the House can commend any further scales as adequate, it is about time that the Government did some research into the real living conditions of the old-age pensioners and produced for the benefit of the House a cost-of-living index based on the actual consumption of the old-age pensioners. If we had such an index, we should find that the cost of living has gone up a very great deal more than is suggested by these Regulations.
The next question the House must ask is why it is that the scales proposed in these Regulations provide for a smaller increase than was given in the pensions increases which we debated a couple of weeks ago. In 1951, the same increases were given on Assistance as on pensions, and in 1952 the Government gave more on National Assistance scales than on basic pensions. Yet now, in 1954, when the need is greater, they give less on National Assistance.
I know that the Government have tried to justify what they have done by producing figures showing that, as compared with 1946 or 1948, Assistance Board payments have increased more in percentage than have pensions, and that it is time to even them up. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is an utterly bogus argument. Surely, we all agreed last July, when we debated a Motion of censure relating to old-age pensioners, that there was considerable hardship in the country, especially though not entirely among the old-age pensioners, and, if we are all agreed that there was hardship, no one could deny that the greatest hardship was in the case of those people who were in receipt of National Assistance.
Therefore, if we were all agreed in July that those on National Assistance were in the worst position and were suffering the gravest hardship, why, in heaven's name, has the right hon. Gentleman given them the smallest increase? That is the question to which we shall want an answer this evening, and I am surprised that that point was not dealt with in the very perfunctory introduction of these Regulations by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
We should like to know, roughly speaking, how many of all those on National Assistance will get only 2s. 6d. Some figures have already been given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and I want to know whether the Government accept these figures. Let us take the case of retirement pensioners, of whom there are about 1 million on National Assistance. About 800,000 of these will be only 2s. 6d. per week better off, about 130,000, it is estimated, will get between 2s. 6d. and 5s., and the remaining 70,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d. That means that the greater proportion will get only 2s. 6d.
If we take the case of the widows, there are 95,000 drawing supplementation, and it is estimated that 81,000 will get 2s. 6d., that 8,000 will get between 2s. 6d. and 5s. and that 6,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d. Taking the recipients of sick benefit, there are 141,000 drawing supplementation, and about 123,000 will receive 2s. 6d., 10,000 will get from 2s. 6d. to 5s. and 8,000 will get between 5s. and 7s. 6d. On top of these, there are about half a million others, non-contributory old-age pensioners and various other groups who were not in receipt of any other pensions or benefits, and most of these will gain only 2s. 6d.
As we know, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) pointed out yesterday, those who have other sources of income than superannuation or who have private means will get the full 7s. 6d., whereas the 1 million people to whom I have referred as being in the worst position will get only 2s. 6d. Does the Minister deny this position? My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) yesterday quoted from an article in the


"Economist" of 11th December, and this is what it said:
There is no doubt that almost all the cases of real hardship are to be found among these one and a half million people, and that it will be only very barely relieved.
The article goes on to quote some complacent averages which were received with satisfaction, no doubt, by the Marie Antoinettes of the Ministry of Food and the Bourbons of the Treasury, and continues:
These averages undoubtedly and cruelly disguise some real cases of hardship; but, once again, it must be emphasised that it is precisely those cases of hardship that the new Pensions Bill will do least to relieve.
The truth is that the Government are so dazzled by their own political propaganda that they are blinded to the extent to which poverty still exists in the country and to the fact that this poverty is still growing. I remember listening entranced a fortnight ago, during the economic debate, to the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. He was giving us all the indices of economic expansion and was getting enthusiastic about the Stock Exchange boom through which we are going. A few days later, going to my constituency, I was appalled at the amount of real poverty shown, not only by old-age pensioners but by others.
This poverty was shown by some of the people who had been waiting for years to move out to a new housing estate. Almost every one of the people who came to my "surgery" said, "We can't afford to live here. Can you get us transferred back to Liverpool?" The people in that very beautiful housing estate, because of poverty under this Government, wanted nothing better than to be transferred back to overcrowding or to the slums, where they could at least know where the next meal was coming from. That is the position the Government have entirely disguised and hidden from this House.
It is very difficult to get authentic, official figures about the position. I should like to refer to some very valuable studies which have been recently made by a private social investigator, and published in a series of articles in the "New Statesman and Nation." They cover a very detailed survey of the poverty in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). This survey showed that about one-tenth of the people are living in the poverty zone; that is, either on or just below the poverty line.
The investigator took the Rowntree standards, with which we are familiar in the great sociological work of the late Seebohm Rowntree. Everyone will agree that those standards were very restricted and stringent. Certainly, no hon. Member would like to live for very long on those standards. The investigator took those standards, and made allowances for the increased cost of food since the Rowntree figures were calculated. He compared them with the National Assistance Board's rates in 1954. Those rates, before these Regulations were put forward, were 12s. below the Rowntree minimum standard, thus adjusted, for a man. They were 16s. below the Rowntree subsistence level for a man and his wife, 26s. below for a couple with one child, 30s. below for a couple with two children and 39s. for a couple with four children. These people are the new submerged tenth of the population that the Government have done so much to ignore.
Perhaps the tragedy of these lives is that they go on to a very large extent in secrecy, in privacy, almost concealed behind lace curtains in back streets. Because we do not hear or read very much about them, the Minister is satisfied to give them only 2s. 6d. a week, and in some cases not that. I have been studying many individual budgets from Liverpool. I wish other hon. Members could see them, although I think all of us have been studying these budgets from our own constituencies. I was appalled to see the report published in a medical journal and written by two Liverpool doctors, saying—and this is very recent—that 39 cases had been admitted into hospital due to malnutrition, to illness due to lack of sufficient money and to similarity of diet. The doctors concluded that if less than 12s. 6d. per week was spent on food, malnutrition would result.
That was last year. We know that the cost of living has gone up since last year, and we can certainly say that if less than 14s. a week is spent on food, malnutrition must be the consequence. I have looked at 34 budgets, and in 14 of them,


less than 14s. was being allowed for food; 12 out of these cases were of married couples.
We cannot begin to decide whether these Assistance scales are adequate without looking at one or two individual cases. Those I shall take are well-authenticated and have been published and open to challenge. They have never been challenged, so far as I know. Every hon. Member on this side of the House, and probably one or two Members on the Government side, can support these illustrations from their own constituencies. The four cases I shall take are all from the inquiry to which I have referred. The details of them were published earlier this year in the "New Statesman and Nation."
The first case relates to a couple who live in a four-roomed house, old-age pensioners over 70. They have neither savings nor children on whom they can fall back for help. The man has been a miner. He told the investigator that he had been out of work for a total of seven years between the wars. That was a common experience in St. Helens. He pointed to the relatively new furniture in the parlour, and said, "I would not even have a decent home if I had not had a steady job during the war. I would be working yet, only my heart won't stand up to it." Their total income is £3 16s. 6d. a week. Their pension is £2 14s., and the National Assistance Board gives them an additional 22s. 6d.
I have their budget, and I challenge any hon. Member to quarrel with any item in the budget as excessive or unnecessary. It shows rent, 12s. 6d.; coal and light, 7s. 6d.; insurance, Is. 6d.; newspapers, 1s. 3d.; sweets and tobacco for two people for a whole week, 3s. 6d.; clothing club, 5s.; other clothes, including shoe repairs, 2s. 6d.; household sundries, 6s. 3d; and football and cinema—I hope that no one will begrudge them this sum for visits to football or the cinema in the course of a week—3s.
All this adds up to 43s. If there is anything excessive in that budget, perhaps hon. Gentlemen will tell us about it. This leaves them with 33s. 6d. a week for all food for two people, for any extras such as saving up for Christmas or for special outings, or buying anything for the house such as sheets, blankets and

pots and pans, or whatever it may be. The investigator said that neither of them complained that they did not get enough to eat. The wife said, rather wistfully, "We don't need teaching how to manage." Her husband chimed in to say, "Once you've been on the dole, you're used to going without."
The plain fact is that these two people were spending less on food than would buy them the minimum diet which Seebohm Rowntree estimated provided the British Medical Association level of adequate nutrition. They were spending less than the 17s. per head on food which the National Food Survey, in 1951, showed was the average of old-age pensioners; since when food prices have risen by one-third. That is one case.
The second case is of a woman living alone. She is 76 and infirm and needs a home help for six hours a week to keep her house clean and to do her washing. Most of her shopping is done for her by neighbours. Her income is 50s. a week. Her only luxuries are sweets, for which she allows herself 2s. 6d. a week, and a wireless on which she is still paying instalments of 3s. a week. I do not think any hon. Member opposite will regard that as excessive spending. Even so, after paying for essentials, she has only about 18s. a week for her food and for any extras.
Recently, this woman needed a new blanket. She could not afford it, and it had to be given to her by one of the voluntary organisations. She buys no butter or cooking fat, but gets a lump of suet from the butcher. For breakfast she has a cup of tea and stays in bed until mid-day. Her lunch most days is an orange, bread and jam and biscuits. She said to the journalist who wrote these articles, "If I'm rich, I have a fried egg and chips." A neighbour's boy usually fetches fish and chips for her tea. This costs her 5s. a week, and she gives the boy another 6d. About twice a month a friend comes on Sundays and cooks a small roast or a stew. "This old lady," said the journalist, "was proud. Her home was small and neat, but she was living in poverty." On those figures, does anyone suggest that there was wasteful expenditure or anything that could have been cut down?
There was a third case, where the persons interviewed said, "If we eat as


we should like, we can't make ends meet." Another said, "If it's a question of coal or food, in winter we pay for the coal." A third pointed to his patched suit and to the shoes he had rather clumsily repaired for himself. "Do the politicians who fix our pensions know how we live?" he asked. "Have they ever had to stop buying newspapers for a month to pay for soles for their boots?" One of them had an apt phrase. He said, "No, you can't say that we don't know where our next meal is coming from. Things aren't that bad. But sometimes we go without the next meal."
The fourth case that I want to quote relates to a widow. We all know that the extent of hardship here is perhaps worse than in any other section of those who are on National Assistance. Here is a woman of 42. Since her husband died last year, she has been supporting herself and two children by part-time office cleaning for which she is paid £2 12s. 6d. a week. Her widowed mother's allowance, plus one family allowance and a payment of 2s. 6d. for the elder child, bring her a total income of 106s., which, the Minister would probably feel, is not too bad.
She had worked out a rudimentary budget, and she said, "Unless I've got this to go by, I just can't make the money go round." She kept four pots in a cupboard into which she put her income at the week-end. This is how the pots were divided: House 42s.; of this 17s. goes on rent. 7s. on coal, 4s. electricity, 5s. hire purchase, 2s. 6d. insurance, and the rest on household sundries. For herself 10s. a week is allowed. Fares are 2s. 6d.; a packet of cigarettes a week, which is all she has, costs 2s. 7d.—not the most expensive brand—and one visit to the cinema costs 1s. 5d. She sets aside 4s. for incidentals, such as cups of tea at work, stockings and underclothes.
The report says that she had spent nothing on dresses, coats or shoes since her husband died, and was unable to make any provision for them. She provided 12s. for her children. She paid 7s. 6d. of this into a clothing club, but she finds that this is insufficient to keep pace with wear and tear on the children's clothes, and we all know how hard this is. Shoe repairs were allocated another 1s. 6d., which I should have thought was inadequate, sweets 1s. 6d.,

and she tried to put 2s. 6d. a week aside for day trips to the sea in summer and other amusements. The children got free meals and milk at school. A fourth pot was for food, and into this she put 42s. a week for herself and her two children.
That is a picture of someone living in this modern Welfare State in a period of this Tory boom. There is a woman who is keeping herself and her two children with the most careful housekeeping on 42s. a week—14s. a week for each of them for food. So far she has done this because it is only a year since her husband died and she is still living on the household equipment of the past. The report states that with every month which passes she slides deeper into poverty. She still has a nice home, the children are kept neat and the family have enough to eat. She said, "If I thought the kiddies were going short, I'd give up my cigarettes and cinema. But that's all I have for myself these days." One fear dominates her mind: "What will happen if I become sick?"
I do not apologise for having given those four examples. I am sure that all hon. Members on this side of the Home could have given 400 more from their constituencies. Surely the Government will not deny that these are fully authenticated cases, representative of a considerable and significant section of our fellow human beings for whom we in this House have a responsibility. They are the conditions of life for hundreds of thousands in the year 1954 of the Christian era. These are the forgotten men and women of the Tory Stock Exchange boom.
We recently debated fair shares in this House. Since the National Assistance Board scales were last debated, the national income of this country has gone up by £2,500 million or £3,000 million, and is increasing by about £1,000 million every year. We are gaining through the continual progress in national production. We are gaining £600 million a year through the favourable turn in the terms of trade, and with all this wealth, with about £2,500 million to £3,000 million more to dispose of as our social dividend, all the Minister can offer to the people who are in worse poverty is this miserable 2s. 6d. a week.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) gave the


figures covering this year only, not the whole of the period since April, 1952, showing that profits have increased this year by 10 per cent., dividends by 20 per cent., capital values, tax-free, by 40 per cent.—and all this after the previous increases in 1953 and 1952. All the right hon. Gentleman can offer is 2s. 6d. a week to those who are in most need. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Government have decided, as a matter of policy, to discriminate against the recipients of National Assistance Board payments. They have had plenty of time to think about this. I know we have had this charade about waiting for the quinquennial review, the Phillips Committee Report and all the rest of it, but the Government have had plenty of time to consider the position of recipients of Assistance Board payments.
I have a feeling that the Government and their supporters—this attitude seemed to creep into their speeches yesterday—consider that those who are on National Assistance are in some way less respectable than those who are getting their pensions, as they say, as of right. My hon. Friends and I fear that the Government are building up a position of less eligibility for those on Assistance, harking back to the social philosophy of the old ideas of parish relief, the old Poor Law and all the rest of it. There is just a slight suggestion—and I hope the Minister will go out of his way to remove this suspicion—that there is in the minds of hon. Members opposite this Victorian idea that those in the worst poverty are there by some cause of their own, through their own fecklessness and their own unwillingness to work.
I appeal to the Government to think again. We ought to ask them to take these Regulations back tonight before it is too late, and not to put them through. After all, other things can wait until 25th January. Why cannot these wait, and why cannot the Government bring forward decent Regulations which at least match the increase in old-age and other pensions? Indeed, in my view, they ought to go considerably beyond. If they are not going to do that, at least let us have from them a clear statement of their policy about Assistance Board payments. Let them at least tell us

tonight, if they admit that hardship exists, has existed all this year and has been worst among the recipients of Assistance Board payments, why, in these proposals, after all the trumpeting at West Derby and elsewhere, the least of all is done for those on National Assistance.
We cannot vote against these Regulations. We cannot be in the position of denying even this measly increase to those who are on National Assistance. Obviously, we must vote for any increase, however small, but responsibility for plunging these people, as the months go by and the cost of living rises, further into poverty, lies with the Government.
Earlier today the House showed a certain end-of-term hilarity, but there is no hilarity among those of us who have stayed to debate these Regulations. When the House adjourns tomorrow many of us will leave with very heavy hearts, regretting that we have not been able to do more for those who are in the greatest need. Thanks to the Government's in excusable callousness and political cynicism in postponing the pensions increases, hundreds of thousands of old-age pensioners and others are this year facing a very bleak Christmas, and thanks to these niggardly Assistance scales they will be facing an even bleaker New Year.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I intend to be brief. The House has already spent time in dealing with important matters which are to be discussed after the Recess, but this is one of the matters which should be dealt with before the Recess. We should try to make what will be for most of us a reasonably happy Recess a slightly happier Christmas for those affected by the Regulations.
I am the president of a pensions association in my area, and I am thrown closely in touch with many pensioners. Some of them are much more fortunate than others. Some of them were able to "put by," as we say in Lancashire. Others were unable to do so. It is the generation which preserved our constitutional way of life that now suffers the worst. I refer to those men and women, mainly men, who came back from the 1914–18 war to find themselves unemployed or only partly employed and who could make no provision for their old age. When I hear Tories talking about the


thriftless, the hopeless and the helpless, I know that there is an obvious retort.
Even pensioners themselves, who are to get the 7s. 6d. increase, are gravely concerned about the plight of their less fortunate pensioner brothers and sisters. We are concerned about the question of this half-a-crown. I listened to the Minister after the television programme last Saturday night, and I have yet to hear a person who was as satisfied with what he was about to do as the Minister appeared to be during that broadcast. But he did not tell the whole story. He did not tell the country that the very worst hit were not to get even the half-a-crown.
Last Saturday I was in my constituency, and in the course of my business I visited the home of an 80-year-old pensioner. She was attempting to whitewash the kitchen ceiling—at 80 years of age! She had a step ladder, a whitewash brush and some whitewash, trying to whitewash the ceiling. I asked why she was doing it and said, "You will kill yourself climbing about the place." She replied, "Well, Jack"—because they all call me "Jack" in my constituency—"I cannot afford to pay for it to be done. These days they ask as much as 3s. for a ceiling, and I cannot afford 3s."
She had a lodger, another pensioner, a good fellow, 72 years of age—one who served his country and his generation well, both in industry and in the trade union movement. When I left she was expressing the hope that somebody would invite him out on Christmas Day, because she did not know how she could provide a meal for him. She herself had been fortunate; a rather distant relative had asked her out for the day.
This Government are supposed to be ardent supporters of the trade union movement. They keep asking—and rightly so; I make no complaint about it—the great trade union movement to increase the national productivity, to increase the national wealth. I was talking the other day to another pensioner, an old bricklayer, and he said to me, "We are not getting a fair crack of the whip." I had already been to the National Assistance Board on Saturday morning, for I am in close contact with the Board. I am fortunate in that respect, for I know officials of the Board in my constituency and I am able to keep in close contact.
In passing, I want to pay tribute to the marvellous work done by these people at the Assistance Board. I have heard complaints about different officers in different parts of the country, but my experience has been that they are most humane and helpful, and, with the exception of when dealing with the odd "smart Alec" who thinks he should get something for nothing, they are the most humane people I have ever met in the course of my political and trade union career.
This trade unionist told me that he would he hard hit as a result of these Regulations, and I asked him to explain why. This was his reply. "When I was at work, I was an ardent supporter of my trade union and I paid my trade union contributions, so that when I ceased work I received a small amount of money from my trade union funds as superannuation." When he had exhausted his savings—he had not been able to save much—he went to the National Assistance Board. This is the strange position which arises—and it is perfectly true. This man has already been to the National Assistance Board to ask how he will stand under the new rates. The officials gave him the courteous attention which he has always received, and they told him that, as a result of the new Regulations, he would be 1s. a week better off. Because of the superannuation and because of a small pension from the firm, plus his ordinary National Insurance pension, he is near the limit, and when everything is taken into consideration, on the day appointed he will be 1s. better off than he was before.
Consider the case of the non-trade unionist—a fellow who did not pay his contribution, the fellow who was a nuisance in the works and often caused trouble. He does not get the superannuation from the trade union fund and he can go to the National Assistance Board. Because he does not receive this superannuation, because he was not a trade unionist but opposed what the union sought to do, he will get the half-a-crown.
It is a shocking state of affairs, but that is how it works out in practice. The fellow who did not pay his contributions to his trade union and who does not get superannuation is 1s. 6d. a week better off than the good fellow who helped to keep the wheels of industry turning and to keep strikes and other troubles away from industry. That is the sort of thing


which the Minister forgot to tell the country in his broadcast. He would not know about it, but we are telling him now. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, we cannot vote against these Regulations. But we can at least voice our protest.
Nothing at all has been done about the disregards. There are plenty of people in the country today, even in my own comparatively well-paid industry, the steel industry, who can put nothing by. Consider the position of the bottom dog, the labourer with a reasonably large family, or the man who is trying to build a better home and to give his children a decent education, the man with commitments; if he falls sick, he has no reserve on which he can fall back. In a short time such people have to go to the National Assistance Board, and under the new Regulations the disregards are not being touched at all. Therefore, those who are hardest hit—not what I call the steady regular pensionable person, but those who are hit because of accident or illness—are given nothing at all extra in disregards. The Government have not done the slightest thing about them, and we want to know why.
I promised to be brief. However these matters may appear on paper, or however they appeared to the Minister when he was speaking in his broadcast, in practice they will work out as I have told him. Let him go on the air again in 12 months time—with the one condition that one of us be allowed to follow him immediately—to state what the position is after these Regulations have been in operation.
I tell the Minister and the Government that this is wicked discrimination against the very poorest of the poor, those who are not poor because of sloth, indifference, or drink. I have not the slightest time for those who try to get something to which they are not entitled. In my constituency we would help officials to prosecute that type of person. On this side of the House we have always been against the individual who wants to get something for nothing.
Forgetting Christmas for a moment, we say in no uncertain terms that when this country is really prospering because of world forces and reduction in world prices, when profits have increased and the availability of wealth is at its highest

possible point, at this moment of history the Minister seeks to give those who deserve the most the very least.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: We have reached a stage when we have some real assessment of the value of the contribution of the Government to relieve the needs of the poor. The pensionable section of the community have been dealt with and yesterday and today we are reviewing the draft Regulations affecting those who come within the scope of the needs determined by the National Assistance Board.
What does all the effort of the Government amount to concerning those subject to the provisions for increased pensions and the Regulations we are now considering? Two Ministers come out of this exceedingly well from a strictly financial point of view; I refer to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By the speech he made in the West Derby by-election they were committed by the Minister of Defence in his statement to the voters, if plain English means anything, which gave the people in need, the old-aged pensioners, a very definite impression that something effective would be done for them.
What is the result? The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance has been able to introduce increased pensions and increased scales for National Assistance. As a result of the way in which he has done that the Chancellor, who proposed to make a contribution towards the increased pensions of £21 million, gets away with a net contribution, when the new pensions operate in April, of about £9 million. That, I am advised, will be the extent of the contribution of the Chancellor on behalf of the Government when the full effect of the pensions is felt in April next year.
Yet the whole impression the Government have created is that they are responsible not merely for providing legislation and helping the National Assistance Board to increase its scales, but also for financing the increased expenditure on old-age pensions. Whereas the net cost to the Government is £9 million, the bulk of the old-age pensions will be defrayed by the insured workers to the extent of £50 million. The greater part will come from industry and that contribution is an


on-cost on the joint efforts of those who work by hand or brain, or both. The Government get away with a mere expenditure of £9 million.
That explains why the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance came to the Box last week with a jaunty and unusually arrogant air. I say "unusually" because, when he was in Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman earned the regard arid respect of hon. Members on this side of the House and his arrogant air last week was unnatural. He was able to satisfy his hon. Friends that with all the increases in pensions and National Assistance rates the flow of the national dividend would still put relatively more into the pockets of the rich than into the pockets of the poorest of the community. Notwithstanding this programme of social improvement, it was done in such a way that, under the present Government, the rich will become richer and the poor poorer than they were under the Labour Government.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out in his most effective and admirable speech, since 1952, according to the Government—for the purposes of making my point I accept it without the slightest qualification—the national income has gone up by £2,000 million, dividends have increased by 20 per cent. and profits by 10 per cent. Yet this is the meagre contribution which the Government are able to offer to the poorest section of the community.
I have gone through a whole body of figures relating to National Assistance. So far as I can see, when the new pensions come into operation the bulk of the pensioners will get a net increase of about 2s. and 4s. a week. The temporary advantage which will come their way on 7th February will disappear and the net result will be that they will be in the same position in April as they are now. I imagine that with the continuing increase in rents there will be a complete cancellation of the slight improvement for those who come within the scope of the National Assistance Board.
I want to say a word about what is known in the language of the National Assistance Board as disregards. The explanatory leaflet issued by the Board explains the disregards in connection with sick pay, workmen's compensation and superannuation, and deals with capital

assets. I should have thought that the Minister could have whispered in the ear of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, "Let us have a tidy administration on this adjustment. We suggest increasing the National Assistance scales to come within the range of the increases for pensions, but not to put them on the same level. Make them slightly less, than the pensions level. We are not doing too badly—financially, we have come out of this very well; but to tidy up the administration, we ought to get an adjustment in terms of the purchasing power of these disregards according to their value in 1946. We ought, therefore, to maintain the 1946 value in the present adjustment." But nothing whatever is being done towards this end, and the disregards remain precisely the same.
I should have thought that in the interests of tidy administration, and to give some sense of reality to his work in connection with the Assistance Board regulations, the Minister would advise adjusting the whole range of these payments, which affect the domestic economy of the people, and would, therefore, increase the value of those factors which are disregarded in the assessment of need by the National Assistance Board.
A pensioner may, if he wishes, remain at work after the age of 65. For every 26 weeks' stamps that he gets on his insurance card, he eventually receives an additional deferred payment of 1s. 6d.; in other words, on retirement he receives his pension plus 1s. 6d. for each additional 26 weeks that he has worked beyond the pensionable age. Some people remain at work for four or five years.
What astounded me was to find that while the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance encourages men and women to remain at work by giving them an accruing increment, determined by the number of years that they remain at work beyond pensionable age, he sends them to the National Assistance Board to consider whether they are deserving of assistance within the meaning of the Regulations. The poor pensioner finds that while he has been encouraged by the Minister to remain at work, he is depressed by the Chairman of the Assistance Board, for this increment, I am advised, is taken into account before a pensioner's need for National Assistance is determined. I ask the Minister to be good


enough to whisper in the ear of the Chairman of the Board that that factor should be completely eliminated in deciding need for the pensioner who has sponsored his country's need by remaining at work.
Those of us who engage in canvassing at election time cannot fail to be impressed by the tragedy of loneliness among aged people. A report which I have been reading reveals that the number of people living entirely on their own has increased by 100 per cent. in the last 20 years. It is estimated that practically a million men and women are living entirely alone.
Their problem cannot be met merely by an increase in the scales, important though this might be. I ask the Minister, in conjunction with the Chairman of the Assistance Board, to see what can be done to empower all local authorities, without any distinction between county boroughs, urban district councils, borough councils or county authorities, to undertake work of a domiciliary nature, including the employment of health visitors, home nurses and the like, so that these people can be properly cared for and the problem of loneliness removed.
In this way, we can help the people not only economically, but socially, so that they may feel that in the eventide of their lives they still remain an important section of the community and are not forgotten, even though they may be living alone and no longer contributing to the economy of the nation. This is a matter that requires the immediate attention of the Government and of the whole nation, for loneliness among the aged is a tragic problem and one that should be remedied without delay.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: It is pleasant to follow the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) because, however offensive are the things he finds it necessary to say in debate, the way he says them is invariably attractive and charming; and that we saw today. I did not propose to make a party political speech. On the other hand, I cannot forbear replying to two of the points the hon. Member made.
The hon. Member dealt with the advances in the rates as if they were niggardly. I cannot refrain from point-

ing out that people on National Assistance, just as those on National Insurance, will be far better off than ever before.

Mr. William Warbey: What exactly does the hon. and learned Member mean by saying that those people will be far better off? Does he mean in monetary terms, or what?

Mr. Simon: I should have thought it would be understood by any hon. Member that it means that a person's standard of living would be higher. Whatever scale we use as a measure, the people who will be drawing National Assistance and those who will be drawing National Insurance payments will find themselves, in terms of the goods that they can purchase, better off than before. Whatever scale or standard one selects, that will be so.
The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen referred to the proposals costing a mere £9 million. I cannot speak as to the actual cost, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that in due course but however much the cost, we are, at any rate, entitled to say that we are effecting that advance and that it was not effected before.
As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) pointed out, the country is at present enjoying great prosperity. That cannot be entirely divorced from the action of the Government, particularly the action which they found it incumbent upon them to take on assuming office—action which was resolute and necessarily unpopular. The Government faced the position courageously. We have seen the turn in the tide of our affairs, and it is owing to that increase in prosperity that we are now able, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in one of his striking phrases, to bring those in the rearguard up into the main body in our advance forward towards a greater prosperity for the country as a whole.
The main question which arises, and which has been canvassed in the debate, is the relationship between the National Assistance payments and the National Insurance payments. Apart from any party point we may make on one side or the other, that is the crucial matter with which we have to grapple. It was


referred to in striking terms, which threw great light on the subject, I thought, by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) yesterday.
It is, of course, part of the problem of poverty. Poverty is relative. It is relative to the state which the community has reached at any particular time. It was not so very long ago in our history when the bulk of the community would have thought that the standard of living enjoyed by those among the poorest in our community, was a very high standard of living. It is not a matter only of mere subsistence, of the necessities of life. Not very long ago it was only kings, princes and nobles who could enjoy such amenities as music and drama, which are now—and we are very glad of this, and it is a matter on which we should reflect with pride when considering the state of our civilisation—open to those who are among the poorest in the land.
Coming to our time, I remember my mother telling me that, when she started her work among the poor in Kilburn, she found that in the poorest homes there it was nothing unusual—indeed, it was common—to see that the only bed furniture was a crate with some rags thrown over it. I have myself been in many homes in my constituency where I know that life bears very hardly on the families. However, it is a very different picture from that.
Equally we should remember that there are many communities in the world who are so near the starvation line that they are in constant danger of sinking below it. I have myself seen, admittedly during the war, in the streets of an Eastern city bodies of people who had died from starvation. So one must bear in mind that the problem is relative. But we have to see that the whole community advances, and that those who are the poorest in the community share in that advance; and we must also see that we do not limit our viewpoint entirely to our own country.
So the first problem, of course, is the problem of raising the general production of the community. It is the problem of seeing that there are more goods, of giving incentives to those who in industry are going to produce the goods that the rich and the poor will consume, the rich and the poor not only of this country but abroad. That is the fund out of which all these contributions are to be

drawn. Having done that, we then surely seek to assist those who are the most pressed by the hardships of life.
I myself have seen in many cases in my own constituency a reluctance to go to the National Assistance Board. I know that that is a common experience, and I am sure that it will be agreed throughout the House that that reluctance arises from a misconception. I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) say yesterday that she regarded payments from National Assistance is a right. I think that that is generally agreed throughout the House.
I think it is fitting today, which is the 150th anniversary of Disraeli's birth, to call to mind that we in this party have a long tradition in the same viewpoint. I was looking only the other day at the first speech he made to the electors of Maidstone immediately before his election.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What was his party then?

Mr. Simon: He was in the Tory Party, standing as a Tory and elected as a Tory, and he said, referring to the Poor Law Act of 1838:
That Bill bears dreadful tidings for the poor.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Whose Measure was it?

Mr. Simon: It was a Whig measure, a measure of the Whig doctrinaires of the time, of the Radicals of the time, and it was defended time and again by the Radicals and the Left Wingers of the time, Disraeli said:
Its primary object is founded not only on a political blunder but on a moral error—it went by the principle that relief for the poor is charity. I maintain it is a right!
Those were almost the same words as were used yesterday by my hon. Friend, speaking in the same great tradition.
So I think it cannot be too widely known, too widely understood, that recourse to National Assistance is as much a right on the part of those on whom misfortune has fallen as recourse to National Insurance payments. Nevertheless, there is a relationship to be drawn between the two. I think we are all agreed that indiscriminate help would defeat itself. That would mean wasting assets on those who do not need them


instead of devoting them to those who really do need them. The way in which the great social security scheme was framed was that we envisaged that there were certain classes of the community inherently likely to suffer hardship. These classes were brought within the National Insurance Scheme, thus freeing them from the means test in affording them relief from their sufferings—such classes as the old people, the sick, the unemployed, and those with large families. The large families, of course, we help by the family allowances, the others come within the National Insurance Scheme. They are the classes so inherently likely to suffer hardship that we afford them relief without imposing a means test, partly, of course, for administrative convenience, partly because we want if possible to avoid the means test if we can do so, while at the same time not wasting our assets.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Sowerby and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) pointed out yesterday, we cannot rely entirely on the National Insurance Scheme. There is then not sufficient flexibility. There may be sudden needs which require relief, and sudden needs over and above the best scales which could reasonably be given by the National Insurance Scheme, and it is for that reason that we still need a system of National Assistance.
There is another reason, too, why I think National Assistance has a very valuable part to play in our social security system, and that is that it does afford a means of having a continual movement forward of the poorest in the community, in line with the general advancing prosperity of the rest of the community. We have all seen the difficulties of effecting such an advance under the National Insurance Scheme. There is a whole mass of machinery and administration which has necessarily to be gone through in order to effect such a change. The National Assistance Scheme is far more flexible in securing that gradual advance. We can see the way in which that has happened in the number of advances which have taken place during the last 10 years.

Mr. George Lawson: Is not that an argument for having the National Assistance scales higher than the National Insurance scales?

Mr. Simon: I was going to deal with that point and was about to say that it was an argument for precisely the opposite. As soon as one has a National Assistance scale which is higher than the National Insurance scale one has exactly the situation which we have experienced repeatedly during the last six years, namely more and more people being thrown on to National Assistance and subjected to a means test rather than having their hardship relieved by National Insurance without a means test. Therefore, I welcome the solution which my right hon. Friend has found, namely, to secure a great advance—for such we regard it—in the National Insurance scale, to bring those on National Assistance forward, but to have a slight margin between the two in order that the bulk of those needing help should be helped without a means test.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I shall be brief, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) will forgive me if I do not follow the line which be took. I confess at the outset that I am congenitally incapable of facing the problems which we are discussing today in the quiet, pedestrian and philosophical manner of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nor shall I take up the time of the House in adding to the detailed analysis of the lives of the people whose misfortunes we are considering, the millions who are living in enforced poverty.
Like many hon. Members, I live in my constituency and have done so for very many years. The House must forgive me if my own contemporaries in the South Wales coalfield, who are suffering from the consequences of the indifference of this Government, are brought to my mind when listening to the calm, quiet almost callous manner in which we approach the sufferings of these people. These are men whom I have known as first-class artists in the coal mines, men who have more than justified themselves in the iron and steel industry, men who have made the railways and tunnelled the mountains, and men who have spent most of their lives in the bowels of the earth. It is concerning these men and their wives and their mothers that we deliver speeches in the


House on these niggardly, almost contemptuous additions to National Assistance which the Government are now placing before us.
There must be a limit to our analysing. We are not dealing with guinea-pigs but with human beings. The House should consider whether this microscopic examination
ad nauseam of the lives of these people is a nice, healthy thing, or whether it is bordering on something approaching political sadism. The analysis made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) today was a shocking revelation.
I have also seen and questioned hundreds of people in their homes in my constituency, homes which I am proud to say have their doors always open to me. I have not done this deliberately, because I do not need much additional information upon the subject. The facts are obvious. I ask the Government to recognise that under their proposals thousands of people will not receive a farthing extra. Hundreds of thousands will receive only 2s. 6d.—a 2s. 6d. so fleeting and evanescent that by the time it is offered to them it will have been eaten up again by increases in the cost of living.
The old-age pensioners, who run into millions, have the Government of the day in their hands. When I am invited to address meetings of old-age pensioners in my constituency or outside, I have never failed to appeal to them to organise on a political basis. I say to them, "You have been appealing for a square deal for many years now. You have not had it yet. It is time you made Governments or potential Governments come to you. It is for you to name your price to any political party which may form the Government."
The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West referred to some of the progress which we have made. One example of progress is that most of these people can read. Very many of them like to read and, thank heaven, they are interested in the Government and in this House. We should not forget that. References have been made from the benches opposite to the care which we should exercise in the administration of National Assistance, and we have been told that we should not waste our substance. Those were surprising words to

come from the other side of the House. We are already wasting our substance to the tune of several hundreds of millions of pounds. Old-age pensioners can see the futility of squandering £1,700 million a year on arms, most of which are obsolete and useless before they leave the conveyor belts of the factories.
All these debates on pensions have only confirmed that the advice which I have given to old-age pensioners is the best. It is that they should add to their organisation and their political power, that they should realise that the Government of the day will have to depend upon their vote. There are millions of them, and the Government of the day will be largely a Government whose presence in this House will depend mainly upon the votes of the old-age pensioners. That is my advice. That is the only lesson which the Government are driving home to these people who are having such a frightfully miserable deal from them.

7.10 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): We have had a longer debate than usual on the Question to approve the new draft Assistance Regulations. In my recollection of the four or five occasions since 1948 when similar Questions were before the House, the rule has been three-quarters of a day or something of that sort for the discussion. But I do not think the debate we have had has been in any sense a waste of time. It is the best debate upon this subject that I can recall, and yesterday, in particular, there were some admirably constructive speeches from both sides of the House. It was very pleasant to note that there was less feeling of bitterness than there was in the past on similar Questions.
There has been very little criticism on this occasion of what I call the structure of National Assistance, that is to say, the relation between the various rates of benefit. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), who is not now in his place, called attention yesterday to the fact that the rate for children had gone up somewhat less since 1946 than some of the other rates had. I think he overlooked the fact that the Labour Government in that year increased the children's rate, selecting that rate alone for an increase.
Nor has there been any criticism of the differential rate for persons living in a household as compared with persons living alone. We have not had our attention called to the special scale for the blind and those suffering from tuberculosis, where, once again, we are increasing the differential in their favour. I think therefore, that what I call the structure of the scheme, which is, after all, very much the same structure as in 1948, has the general approval of Members in all quarters of the House.
As we anticipated, the main criticism has been directed to the amount of the increase which these scales provide. I do not think I can do much better on that than to say that during the two and a half years since the increases were made in 1952 there have been very few Questions in this House and very few letters in my correspondence complaining of the amount of those scales. The Board, of course, has a high reputation. It very frequently uses its power to give discretionary additions, and that may be the reason why I get so few complaints about Assistance scales.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who opened the debate today, drew attention to some observations of mine during the Motion of censure debate on old-age pensions on 16th November. I think I might quote one or two sentences. I do not often quote my own speeches, but I think on this occasion it will save me a certain amount of time and trouble. I said then:
The Assistance scales are higher in purchasing power, and have been higher in purchasing power over the last two years, since the increases made in 1952. than at any previous time in the history of the Board. The scale has been 59s. for a married couple over the last 2¼ years, which compares with 40s. from 1948 to 1950 and with 43s. 6d, from 1950 to the autumn of 1951. Whatever index he may use, no one can show that the 59s. today is worth as little as the 40s. and the 43s. 6d. were in the three years to which I have referred.
Then I mentioned the discretionary powers which the Board exercise so freely, and I went on—and this is perhaps also worth quoting—to say this:
The only valid ground on which an increase in the Assistance scales and the supplements to insurance by the Board could be claimed today would be that so much has national prosperity increased in the last three years that the poorest people, and particularly

the aged poor, are entitled to a larger share of the nation's cake than the 1952 scales, the highest scales ever introduced, give them at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1954; Vol. 533, c. 237738.]
That was not challenged at the time though most of the statements I made in the course of that debate were. Indeed, I believe it is unchallengeable, and if any hon. Member chooses to make up for himself an increase which excludes such items as rent, which does not come into the computation of the scales because it is paid for separately by the Board, tobacco, alcohol and any other items which a person on assistance might be assumed not to consume, it will be seen that, first of all, the 1948 standards, then set by the Labour Government, were a distinct advance on anything in the Assistance scheme before.
The persons on assistance in July, 1948, got a definite increase in their standard of living. There is no doubt about that, and there is also no doubt that the 1952 scales represent a similar advance in the standard of living. Under these two increases taken together a single person got 11s. more than he had in the years 1948750. going up from 24s. to 35s., and a married couple got no less than 19s. more from 1952 onwards compared with what they received in the years 1948750.
I would just mention one or two facts about the cost-of-living indices. Clearly, the official index is no guide to a person on assistance. All the same, it is just as well to note that the rates proposed in these Regulations are aping up 56¼ per cent. above the 1948 scales, which, in their turn, gave an increased standard to persons on assistance. The official index since 1948 has moved up by about 33 per cent. If we take the two items which have gone up, food and fuel, it will be found that since 1948 food only has gone up by a fraction over 60 per cent. and fuel and food by about 56 per cent. Of course, nobody spends his or her money entirely on food and fuel, and other items, such as clothing, which have moved up very much less, do come into any reasonable computation of what a person on assistance needs.
I would say, therefore, that it can be established beyond doubt that the standards being provided by the proposals now before the House will put them considerably in advance of the position in


which they were in 1948. So I think that some of the strictures of the right hon. Member for Huyton were a little exaggerated. Indeed, if they were true they would be a severe condemnation of the scales which were in force during the six years when he was a Member of the Government from 1945 to 1951.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, despite the great increase in national production and in the national income since 1948—and I gave a figure of £3,000 million over the last two or three years—we cannot afford a better standard of living for our people than we had in 1948?

Mr. Peake: I agree that it would be wrong to regard subsistence as a static conception and I was saying that there had been an increase in our conception of subsistence in 1948 and another advance again in 1952. At that time, in recommending the scales, the Board said that it took account of future increases in price which it thought might occur. So, for the first time in 1952, the Board definitely fixed scales which went ahead of the 1948 conception. The increases of 1950 and 1951 merely restored the person on National Assistance to the position in which he had been in 1948, whereas, in 1952, the Board made it clear in its Explanatory Memorandum that its proposals were definitely aiming at a higher standard for persons on National Assistance.
When I said in the debate on 16th November that, in my view, the only valid ground upon which the Board could put forward the scales now would be to give a higher conception to the idea of subsistence, I was giving—and I think the Board accepted it as such—a hint to the Board that the time had come for a further advance in the Assistance scales. People have asked me what index the Board consider. It looks at and considers many indices, but it has something much better nowadays by which it recommends new scales of National Assistance. The Board has the experience of its officers, who are in constant touch with persons on National Assistance and who have their own commonsense.
The Board is an excellent body. Things have been said about its constitution. It is true that there has been a change of chairman. I think the Board has been

exceptionally fortunate in its chairmen. The first chairman was known to some older hon. Members of this House, Lord Rushcliffe, a man of quite exceptional experience. He was followed by Lord Soulbury, who, in turn, was followed by Mr. George Buchanan, a man known and liked in this House. I am glad to say that Mr. Buchanan not only served his appointed period but, at our request, served for some months beyond his appointed period and still remains a valued member of the Board.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) suggested that there has been some tightening up. I can assure him that the administration of the Board goes on exactly as before. Although we all know that when members of different political parties get round a table they can often agree very well among themselves, if anyone cared to examine the political predilections of the present Board, he would find that today it had a predominantly Left-wing majority.

Mr. Tom Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, would he be good enough to answer my question?

Mr. Peake: It is an important question and I will deal with it. Before I do so, may I say that while it is possible for hon. Members to say that this advance is inadequate, any suggestion that the Board and the Government ought to have gone further than this is a great tribute to the success of Tory Government in the last three years.
Now I want to give a few figures dealing with finance, because the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this was a good bargain for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let us get the figures clearly on record. The total cost of all the operations will be £25 million a year in the first full year. Of that, £15 million is the cost of the war pension increases and the balance of £10 million in the first full year is the difference between the £23 million which the Exchequer has to pay by way of additional contributions into the Insurance Fund as its proportion of the quota, less an estimated amount of £13 million which the National Assistance Board is likely to save through paying smaller amounts of assistance to persons whose insurance benefits are increased under the insurance proposals.
However, this is only an estimate for the first full year, and the reason it can only be an estimate is that nobody can tell with any precision what the future trend is likely to be of the number of persons seeking National Assistance. But, while the Exchequer gets off fairly cheaply in the first full year at £10 million, in five years' time, as a result of all these proposals, it will have to find an extra £50 million a year over and above what it would have had to find previously. I go further and point out to the House that the burden on the Exchequer towards National Insurance which is now £70 million will increase to £236 million a year in five years' time.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the point which the Minister is making that the cost to the Exchequer in the coming financial year for the whole of the operation is less than £10 million?

Mr. Peake: No, I thought I made it clear that the whole of the operation was covered by my statement to the House on 1st December that it would cost the Exchequer £25 million in the first full year. Apparently it is considered a wicked thing for this Government, by increasing insurance benefits, to make some saving on the National Assistance side.
But, after all, there is nothing novel or surprising about this since the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Huyton and for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) claim the credit for having increased the National Insurance pension from 10s. a week to 26s. a week in the year 1946 and, as a result of that operation, they not only cut down the grants of assistance of many people but deprived nearly one million people of National Assistance altogether, so the resulting financial saving on the assistance side to the Exchequer was on a colossal scale. Assuming that each of those persons was drawing, on an average, £60 or £70 a year in National Assistance at that time, taking one million persons off National Assistance must have saved the Exchequer £60 million or £70 million.
I turn now to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward). Apparently she is not in the Chamber.

Miss Irene Ward: Yes, I am.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Peake: I do not believe that I am allowed to "see" my hon. Friend in view of where she is sitting. Nevertheless, I will reply to the points which she made yesterday. My right hon. Friend made a very good speech. She usually attacks me and takes me on a trip to Margate, reminding me what happened at our conference there in 1953. But my hon. Friend never went to Margate at all. I missed her very much when I got there, because I had prepared a speech to deal with the motion which she had inspired, which was concerned with what she and I call, and understand to be, "the small income groups." I should have thought that she might have regarded what has been done for the five million old-age pensioners under my proposals as of considerable help to the small income groups.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend attacked me because there is no increase in the rate of non-contributory old-age pension. That pension is becoming an anomaly. It is neither an insurance pension nor truly a grant of assistance, but all the money for it comes from the Exchequer. It is subject to a means test, though not quite the same kind of means test as under National Assistance; it is a means test which is more generous where capital is concerned and rather less generous where income is concerned. However, no more of those pensions are to be granted after 1961.
All the recipients of the pensions are in close touch with the National Assistance Board. Nearly half of them are actually drawing National Assistance in supplementation of their non-contributory old-age pensions. I am following the precedent set by the Socialist Government in 1951 and my own precedent in 1952 in leaving the non-contributory old-age pension where it is. My personal wish is that it had been allowed to lapse in 1948 when the great new scheme of insurance pensions was brought into operation.
The hon. Member for Ince said something about a secret circular. He said:
Within the last 12 months there has been a tightening in the application of the Regulations. … Is it true that a private or confidential circular was sent out by the Assistance Board, or possibly by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, telling area officers and investigating officers what to do and how to do it?


He went on:
That is a very pointed question I am putting to the Minister. If that is not so, I shall be delighted. But if I am correct I think he ought to tell the truth to hon. Members and to the people who have to look after these cases. … if such a circular has been sent out, he bears the responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2515–6.]

Mr. T. Brown: So the right hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Peake: That is a very old gambit. It has often been played before. I thought it had rather gone out of fashion.
Surely everybody realises that government would be impossible if Ministers had to disclose all the advice and instructions issued by their Departments to their officers who are responsible for administration in the country. I do not know whether or not any circular has been issued. In any case, it is the responsibility of the National Assistance Board. One of the occasions upon which the gambit was played was during a debate on 9th December, 1943. when the right hon. Member for Caerphilly—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Old battles.

Mr. Peake: —asked the late Mr. Ernest Bevin:
Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point about making the instructions issued by the Assistance Board available in the Library?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1943; Vol. 395, c. 1243.]
The right hon. Gentleman got from the late Mr. Ernest Bevin—

Mr. Ness Edwards: A raspberry.

Mr. Peake: —a rather dusty answer which I will not now quote to the House.
The right hon. Member for Caerphilly also asked me about our detailed timetable for introducing the short-term benefit increases. The main dates for National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Insurance are as follows. For retirement pensions and widows' benefits of all kinds the new rates will commence on the pay days in the week beginning 25th April. Hon. Members will know that there are different days of the week on which different classes of beneficiary go to the Post Office for their benefits. For the short-term benefits for injury, sickness and unemployment the increase will commence on 19th May. For the increased contributions it will be the week commencing 6th June.
I should like, in conclusion, to say a word or two about the very interesting subjects which were raised in yesterday's debate about the relation between National Insurance and National Assistance. The hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gave us a very interesting contribution on the subject. He complained of the Conservative Party's "empirical approach" to this matter. Let us look at the history. In July, 1948, under the great new schemes, for a married couple the National Insurance benefit rate was 42s. and the National Assistance rate 40s.; the National Insurance benefit was 2s. ahead of the National Assistance cash scale. The rent, of course, was paid separately by the National Assistance Board. In June, 1950, two years later, while the National Insurance benefit for the married couple remained at 42s. the National Assistance scale for them went to 43s. 6d.; for the first time, the National Assistance scale exceeded in cash the amount of the National Insurance benefit.
In September, 1951, after the increase given then to pensioners only—not to the sick or the unemployed, and by no means to all pensioners, because those attaining 65 after that date were omitted—parity was established between the two rates for the first time, 50s. being the National Insurance pension benefit rate and 50s. also the married couple's National Assistance rate.
In June, 1952, under the proposals which I sponsored, once again the National Assistance scale outran the National Insurance benefit rate. The National Insurance benefit rate went to 54s. and the National Assistance scale to 59s. Under the proposals which I have now put before the House we are going back very much to the situation as it was in July, 1948. We are establishing a position where the National Insurance 'benefit rate will be 2s. a week higher than the National Assistance scales, the figures being 65s. on the National Insurance benefit side and 63s. on the National Assistance side.
The hon. Member for Sowerby complained of what he called our empirical approach. Our approach is empirical and I will tell him why. It is better to have an empirical rather than a doctrinaire approach.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is better to have a humanitarian approach.

Mr. Peake: I certainly claim that in both our proposals we are adopting the humanitarian approach. There has been a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House that we must try to restore the insurance system and the insurance principle to their proper place in our national affairs.
Hon. Members have expressed a great deal of agreement with the speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in the debate on the Motion of censure on 21st July. He said:
I have previously said that I wanted to raise the basic pension before raising the basic National Assistance scales.
He went on:
It is not only the fact that the number of persons seeking assistance is increasing all the time which worries me, though if that goes on it will undermine the scheme and break it down."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1476–7.]
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was also worried by the number of people who, because of their pride and dignity, would not go to the National Assistance Board. He was very much in favour of doing something on the National Insurance benefit side before action was taken over the scales of National Assistance.
In deciding our policy, therefore, and in deciding on a very much larger increase in the National Insurance benefits scale than in the National Assistance scale rates, I have been very largely guided by an empirical consideration, and that is the growth in the numbers receiving National Assistance. That is the yardstick by which our policy in this matter should very largely be guided. It has been very distressing to see year by year a growth in the numbers having to seek help from the National Assistance Board.
They were steadily growing in the years following 1948. On my table in the Ministry I have a graph showing month by month and week by week the numbers receiving National Assistance and having different classes of National Insurance benefits supplemented. There has been a steady rise since 1948 to the end of 1952. In 1953, the graph was tending to flatten out and the increase in numbers was only about half what it had

been over the average of the three or four preceding years.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is the increase.

Mr. Peake: Yes. In 1954 for the first time the line has flattened out and we have achieved stability. We want to go further and aim at seeing the numbers receiving National Assistance tending to diminish by virtue of other provisions made for them.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is that why the scale is being cut down?

Mr. Peake: It is certainly not. There are four favourable tendencies today. One is the increase we are making in the National Insurance benefit rate; another is the very large proportion of people today who are earning increments to their pensions under National Insurance and are, therefore, retiring on rates of pension which take them outside the range of National Assistance. A third feature is that nearly 30 per cent. of all those going on to National Insurance pensions today have another pension from some other source which they have earned by virtue of their employment. A fourth factor acting favourably in this field is the great revival in personal thrift and personal savings which has taken place in the last 18 months or so.
All these are hopeful signs in the objective which all Members on both sides wish to achieve, namely, an increasing reliance on insurance benefits earned by virtue of contributions rather than payments by way of gift or grant from the Assistance Board, subject to test of means. I believe that we all have very much the same object at heart. I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that the scales, which I hope the House will now approve, provide a better purchasing power than any scales which this House has ever before adopted.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. William Warbey: Yesterday the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), in a speech of unusual restraint for him, managed, towards the end of his remarks, to work in a little flourish of hyperbole. He said that these scales are the most generous we have yet had. If he had said that the monetary values of these scales are the highest we


have yet had, he would have been correct and platitudinous. But what he presumably meant to say was that the Government were being more generous in the standard of living they were providing for the poorest sections of the community than any other Government of our time.
We have just had from the right hon. Gentleman a somewhat more modest claim. It was that these scales preserve the standard of living for the poorest section of the community; that we have got hack to 1948.

Mr. Peake: Mr. Peakeindicated dissent.

Mr. Warbey: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but that is what I understood him to say.
Moreover, that is borne out by the figures he gave, because he has admitted—and I was very glad to hear the admission from the Government Front Bench—that in the case of the poorest section of the community one cannot take the official cost-of-living index as a guide to the changes in their standard of living. It was an admission that one must recognise that their budgets substantially are made up of food, fuel and light and other items which, owing to the deliberate policy of the Tory Government, have risen far more in price than the other items in the budgets in the rest of the community.
What were the figures which he gave us? He said that since 1948 the scales have risen by 56¼ per cent., but he told us that the cost of food had risen by no less than 60 per cent. In other words, in terms of food, which is the biggest single item and in fact the largest item in the budget of the poorest sections of the community, such people will be actually worse off than they were in 1948.
It is true that fuel and light have gone up by only 50 per cent., slightly under the figure of the monetary increase in the scale. Nevertheless, on balance, all that the Minister can claim is that those drawing the full scales of National Assistance, those relying entirely upon National Assistance for their means, will have had compensation for the increase in their cost of living since 1948. That is the best that he can claim.
But the Minister claims that only by disregarding a number of elements which affect many of the people—in fact, the majority of the people—who draw

National Assistance. He can achieve that target of marking time with 1948 in this year of prosperity 1954 only by disregarding the disregards. I very carefully listened to the right hon. Gentleman and there were some questions from hon. Members on this side of the House which he did not answer. He made no reference at all to the question of the disregards in National Assistance. I suspect that he did not do that because, had he done so, that would completely have upset the figures which he gave.

Mr. Peake: I am sorry that I forgot to deal with the question of disregards. I have often dealt with it at Question time and pointed out that most of the disregards have remained unaltered for many years by both Governments. The 20s. disregard goes back to 1944 and increasing disregards would not help the neediest people drawing National Assistance.

Mr. Warbey: I am dealing with the very large class of persons who are not totally without resources other than National Assistance.
The Minister might have the figures at his disposal. I have not, but in most cases which come to my attention in my constituency there are some means within the household. National Assistance is required as a supplement to those means. This is a very large class of persons who deserve some consideration from the Government, because they include people who have contributed by saving towards superannuation payments. We hear a lot from the Government about the virtues of thrift and about their wanting to encourage saving.
As the Minister knows, one of the reasons why this element of disregard is included in the scheme is precisely to go on encouraging saving and not to discourage it. The minister said in his interjection that these disregarded elements have not been increased in amount. In other words, they have not been increased to correspond with the increases in the cost of living; the value of those disregards has fallen with every increase in the cost of living. What is the effect of that?
Let us now adjust the figures for a person who is entitled to the maximum disregard for disablement pension, for superannuation pension, and so on—a


maximum aggregated disregard of 20s. In 1948, when the scale began, such a person was able to draw 24s. in addition to the 20s. which were disregarded, making a total of 44s. Under the proposed new scales, next February he will be able to draw the new scale of 37s. 6d. plus a disregard which is still only 20s., a total of 57s. 6d. This is a typical example. The standard of living in monetary terms of such a person will have risen from 44s. to 57s. 6d. That is an increase of 32·6 per cent. That is the extent by which his total resources will have increased when the further increase of 2s. 6d. comes into effect.
That increase is actually less than the increase in the cost-of-living index which, the right hon. Gentleman agreed, had risen by over 33 per cent. Therefore, people in such a position would be worse off if their typical budgets were those which were the average for the population as a whole. If we take into account the fact that their budgets mainly comprise food, fuel and light, they are a good deal worse off now, and they will still be a good deal worse off when the scales have gone up, compared with what they were in 1948.
As a final illustration, I quote the case of an ex-miner from my constituency. He is 78 and he gave the best years of his life to some of the most important work which could be done—digging coal out of the ground. He has a retirement pension and a miner's pension to which he contributed himself, and he has been supplementing those sources of income from National Assistance. What was his position up to two months' ago? Until then he was drawing a retirement pension of 32s. 6d. and the miner's pension of 10s. and he was able to get total National Assistance payments, including rent allowance, of 12s. 6d., making a total of 55s.—the basic scale allowance being 35s. plus rent allowance of 10s., 45s. in all.
In November, his miner's pension was increased by 5s., from 10s. to 15s., but under the disregard rule—which in the case of a single payment within the category of disregards is limited to 10s. 6d.—he could only get the benefit of 6d. out of that 5s. increase. When his miner's pension was raised last month by 5s., his National Assistance was docked by 4s. 6d.

Therefore, his thrift and service to his union and to his country was recognised not to the extent of an increase of 5s. but by a net increase of 6d.
What will be his position next February? When the scales go up he will get another 2s. 6d., so that he will have got by then a total increase of 3s. But then will come April, and his retirement pension will go up by 7s. 6d. His National Assistance will then go down again by the full amount of 7s. 6d. In April he will still be only 3s. better off than he was 18 months ago. What has he had? He has had an increase in retirement pension of 7s. 6d. and an increase in his miner's pension of 5s.—a total increase of 12s. 6d.
He has been told that the Assistance scale is increased by 2s. 6d., and out of this, including two pensions towards which he himself has contributed, all he gets is an increase of 3s. Including rent allowance, his income, 18 months ago, was 55s. Next February, his total income will be 58s., a net increase of 3s. on 55s. That is an increase of 5½ per cent. in two years. He has to wait very nearly two years to get an increase in his cash income of 5½per cent., and in his real income an actual fall.
That is the way the Tory Government treat the men in the mining and other industries who have given the best part of their lives to working for the country, and who have contributed towards its savings. They are to get an increase, of which the Government boast, in their retirement pension and an increase in their miner's pension, and yet, at the end of the whole process, they will be worse off than when they started.
That situation results from the fact that the Minister is deliberately allowing the value of National Assistance to be whittled away by reducing the amount of the disregards as the cost of living rises. He is doing it deliberately. As he rightly said, we have asked Questions about it in the House. I put a Question on 1st November. I asked the Minister if he would bring the disregards up to the level they should reach in accordance with increases in the cost of living, which, in the case of retirement should be £1 6s. 8d., or probably 30s., and in the case of the 10s. pensioner 14s. or 15s.
When I put that to the Minister, he answered:
No, Sir.
This is the reason he gave:
I do not think we want to encourage more people to rely on Assistance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 15.]
It was an extraordinary reason to give. Suppose one turned the negative form of that question the other way. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman said, "I think we want to discourage people from relying on assistance." Is that what he really means? Is that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman? Is that what he is trying to do?
The right hon. Gentleman said, earlier, that he was anxious to get the figures down of those who are drawing National Assistance. He was indignant when it was suggested on this side of the House that he was trying to get the figure down by reducing the scale in real value. It is now clear that by ignoring the disregards and doing nothing to increase their value he is in fact, discouraging people from drawing National Assistance. He is making the value of assistance less than it was before.
This is the policy of the Government, in a year in which we are told that the country is prospering more than ever and in which the people are told that they can invest in success. I hope that the Minister will invest in a little of the milk of human kindness and will consider the case of those who are becoming again a submerged tenth. They have not very much to offer by way of votes to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but a good deal by way of thanks if they were generously treated.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Minister said that he was adopting an empirical approach to this question. Replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), he said that he would prefer an empirical approach to a doctrinaire approach. I interjected to ask why not a humanitarian approach. The Minister then proceeded to say how much concerned he was about a rising graph that was in his office of applicants for National Assistance. I look upon the matter from a different point of view, not as one of a complicated graph, or series of statistics, masses of figures or

calculations, but as a problem of the human beings among whom I live.
It is more than 30 years since I first became acquainted, as a member of a parish council in the little town in which I lived in Scotland, with the administrative problems of the poorest of the poor. I remember how we had to go to the parish council, which was then an elected body, and engage in all sorts of calculations and scales which were submitted to us by the Poor Law authority. I used to see people coming along to be cross-examined about their meagre incomes and distressing circumstances. I saw the down-and-out miner, who might have saved a little and whose income had to be taken into account. We face exactly the same problem today.
Later on, the parish councils gave way to the public assistance committees of the county council, and they had the same calculations of income to make and the same attempt to square humanity with municipal taxation. All the time I remembered that these were the poorest of the poor, exactly the same kind of people who will be affected by these Regulations. This generation has seen lock-outs, strikes, poverty and the near-hunger that has come to the mining areas in recent years. It has seen two wars and the hardship and misery of life. It is now being divided into recipients of National Insurance benefits and those affected by these Regulations.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who pointed out these facts and argued that people should be treated more generously because they had built up our national wealth. They have served this country in industry and are entitled to humanitarian treatment during their concluding years. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, who talked about a Socialist approach which, from my point of view, coincides with the humanitarian approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby asked that these scales should not only include rent, clothing and food, but the little amenities of life like the wireless licence and the possibility of looking at a television set.
I go further. In my constituency many of the older generation are living in isolated villages perhaps 15 or 20 miles away from a town. Some of them may live 12 or 20 miles from the seaside. In


their old age, in their twilight, they are entitled to go to the seaside, to the pictures and on the bus trips which are now the luxury of the mining folk. They see a new age, in which the wages in the mining areas stand at a level much beyond what in their own day they regarded as high. They now see the younger generation earning £12, £15 and even £20 a week, and yet they are compelled to live on a poor subsistence level with very little opportunity to enjoy the amenities of life. I fail to see how, under these miserable scales, it is possible for the veteran of the mining industry and his wife to lead anything like the life to which they are entitled, not as a charity from us but as mere justice.
We have heard about the cost. We have heard of the sum of £9 million and other large sums which will have to be paid by the Exchequer in the years to come. The Minister is always reminding us that he has to keep an eye on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is interested, and that these millions have to be found out of national taxation, but I would point out what I have frequently stressed, that a nation which can find £1,500 million for the Services can afford to give a fraction of that sum to the people who have given their lives for this country.
That is going to be the perpetual problem—how can we increase the standard of life of the worker and maintain the social services, how can we give decent pensions and do justice to the poorest of the poor, if at the same time we have to carry this huge burden on other parts of the Budget?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the last Labour Government said during the weekend that there was too much emphasis on military expenditure, and I agree. We could find enough money to pay decent old-age pensions and get decent National Assistance scales if the emphasis were in the right place and if we had true priorities. When this nation is prepared to give a fraction of what it spends on the armed Services to the old-age pensioners, to those on National Assistance and to the injured workers, then it will be possible to solve the problem now confronting the nation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ENGLAND (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)

8.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulation 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
These Regulations have been made by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury under powers granted in the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1947 and 1954. I admit at once that they are pretty complicated. Even by comparison with the parts of the latter Act which we have recently experienced, they are exceedingly difficult for the layman to comprehend.
The explanation is simple enough. It is because we are trying to apply the provisions of an already complex Act to the circumstances of an industry which already has complications and customs of its own. In those circumstances, I think I should try to give as full and lucid an account of these Regulations as I can, and I would like to apologise in advance for the time that this may take. If, after I have given the account, there are still questions in the minds of hon. Members, perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I may reply to them by the leave of the House, at the end of the debate.
So as to put matters in perspective, I should point out that not all these Regulations stem from the new Act. For the convenience of everybody concerned, we have tried to consolidate three sets of Regulations which have been in force for a varying number of years under the Act of 1947. These are the Minerals Regulations 1948, 1949 and 1953. Part II of the present Regulations—that is to say, Regulations 3 to 10—re-enact those of the existing Regulations which are still required. Part II might, therefore, be described as mainly consolidatory in character, but there are one or two new provisions in Part II to which I must refer in a moment.
It is, I think, on Part III that the main interest of the House centred—that is to say, Regulations 11 to 24, which adapt the provisions of the 1954 Act to the mineral industry. Before I tackle either part in detail, I think that perhaps three general observations may assist the House to understand why the provisions of the Planning Acts need to be specially adapted in order to deal with minerals.
There are a number of features of mineral development which are not to be found in any other type of development. First of all, mining operations differ from other kinds of development, in that they add nothing to the value or the land. The value of the permission to work minerals lies solely in the right to take them away, and this removal frequently destroys what value there was in the land.
Secondly, the process of extraction and treatment of minerals usually requires the provision of expensive fixed plant and buildings near the area of working. That is because the minerals in their raw state are often too low in value to make them worth transporting any distance. There are such things as cement works, the plant of which is so expensive that it takes between 80 and 100 years to amortise its cost. In these circumstances, it will be seen that the value of the plant depends on the availability of suitable minerals, while the presence of plant enhances the value of the minerals which feed it. They are, one might say, interdependent.
The third general point which I should like to make is that the 1947 Act treated the winning and working of minerals as a continuous operation and not as a use of land. Therefore, planning permission is required as long as working continues. As a result of this—and the importance of this point will emerge when we consider Regulations in more detail—the working of minerals is not an existing use. Consequently, the buildings, plant and machinery used for the purpose have no real existing use value.
In the light of these remarks, let me pass in a little more detail to the provisions of Part II. I must make a passing reference to Regulation 2 in Part I, which sweeps away all the existing mineral Regulations made under the Act of 1947. Part II reinstates such of these Regulations as we still require, amended where necessary to take into account the effect

of the Act of 1954. I have said that Part II is mainly re-enactment, but there are three points here upon which I should comment.
First, the House may wonder why certain Regulations, notably Regulations 8 and 9, still make reference to the calculation of claims on the £300 million and the determination of development charge. The point there is that some claims made by mineral undertakers have not yet been determined. The reason is that negotiations on some claims have been protracted. They are difficult and complicated, and some are still outstanding. That, in the main, explains why it is necessary to include in the Regulations those provisions which relate to claims on the Fund. Similarly, there are a number of development charges which are still not determined.
The second special reference which I should like to make in Part II relates to Regulation 10, and, again, possibly some words of preliminary explanation might be helpful. It will be understood that in the years immediately before the coming into force of the 1947 Act, planning control of the winning and working of minerals was very much less stringent. At the appointed day, 1st July, 1948, therefore, some transitional arrangements had to be made to enable operators who were already at work to go on extracting minerals without specific permission until their applications for specific permission could be determined. The General Development Order, 1948, required the operator to apply for specific planning permission within a given time but left him free in the meanwhile to go on working minerals in land adjoining his existing working.
Generally speaking, any compensation for refusal of permission to work minerals can be founded only on loss of development value in the minerals. Under the 1954 Act, the compensation will be based on the claim on the £300 million Fund and, in future, the unexpended balance. In the ordinary way, plainly, refusal cannot damage the value of buildings, plant and machinery, because they ought not to be erected until the necessary permission is forthcoming, but in the case of workings existing in 1948 something had to be devised to meet a situation in which buildings, plant and machinery existed and could be damaged


by refusal to allow the continuance of working in land covered by the General Development Order.
Regulation 10 (1), which appeared in the 1948 and 1953 Regulations, was a means of providing for compensation for such damage. The main change which has now been made is by Regulation 10 (2), which is new. The applicant is enabled to claim compensation for loss through disturbance of his undertaking as though the permission under which he was working had been revoked or modified. It appeared to the Government, in the circumstances which I have just described, that the effect of a refusal of permission was very much the same as the effect of a revocation of permission, and that the compensation ought, therefore, to be on the same basis.
The third point which I want to mention before leaving Part II is the addition which has been made in Regulation 7, which corresponds to No. 5 in the 1948 Regulations. Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations provided, among other things, for the calculation of compensation where buildings, plant and machinery were compulsorily acquired. In those circumstances, regard was to be had to the existence of any specific planning permission to work minerals. Nothing was then said about the effect of a permission under the general Development Order, and the purpose of the second paragraph of Regulation 7 is to enable the value of a General Development Order permission to be taken into account.
That, for the moment, concludes points which I thought might interest hon. Members on Part II. I tan assure the House that it covers the points of substance created by our additions and our adaptations. I come now to Part III which, the House will learn with regret, contains the substance of these Regulations.
Here, I think it would be helpful if I first stated one general problem which has to be faced in applying the provisions of the 1954 Act to minerals. It stems from the rather unusual financial arrangements incorporated in leases of minerals. The most significant is the custom of reserving an annual rent under the lease which is payable by the lessee whether he works any minerals or not. As a

corollary to this liability, the mineral lessee normally has the right to work, without any further payment, an appropriate tonnage of minerals at a subsequent time.
Although it will take a moment or two, I think it would be of benefit to the House—for this is a very complicated point—if I attempted to give a simple example of how this works out in practice. For instance, a lease of ironstone might include provision for the payment of an annual minimum rent, of, say, £200. This amount would represent a certain tonnage of minerals at the royalty paid under the lease. Let us say that in this case the royalty reserved in the lease is 6d. a ton. The rent of £200, as will be seen by simple arithmetical calculation, would represent 8,000 tons of minerals.
If, in any one year, the operator worked more than 8,000 tons, he would normally begin paying 6d. a ton over and above that figure, but if in any one year he failed to work 8,000 tons, he would be allowed to work the amount by which he had fallen short in the subsequent years free of royalty. That is the custom known as accumulating short working.
Supposing that in the first year the lessee works no minerals at all, in the second year he works 4,000 tons and in the third year he works 12,000 tons. The position is roughly as follows: in the first year he pays £200 minimum rent and no royalties, so that at the start of the second year he has accumulated short workings of £200. In the second year he pays £200 minimum rent and works 4,000 tons, representing £100 worth of royalties. At the beginning of the third year, therefore, he has accumulated short workings of £300—that is, £200 from the first year and £100 from the second year.
In the third year he pays £200 minimum rent and works 12,000 tons, representing £300 worth of royalties. At the beginning of the fourth year, therefore—and I hope I have been followed so far—he has accumulated short workings of £200—that is, the £300 with which he started the year less £100, being the excess of his workings over his minimum rent.
So much for short workings which, in the context of these Regulations, is primarily a matter of interest for the lessee. To complete the picture, I should


explain one other feature of a normal mining lease. This is quite essential to a number of Regulations which fit in when one has completed the picture. This is known as a break clause which enables either party to break, or terminate, a lease at certain pre-arranged intervals, say ever five years. I will try to relate the two arrangements I have described to each other. When the lessee and the lessor made their claims on the £300 million, the lessee's claim would be based in the main on the value of the short workings he had accumulated at the appointed day. The amount of the lessor's claim would depend largely upon the value of his right to receive the minimum rate for the years up to the next operation of any break clause.
Now we come at last to the point of all this. If when a payment falls to be made under the Act the lessee has accumulated—as he might well have done—more short workings than he had at the appointed day while the number of years until the next break in the lease has increased, the share of development value held by each of the two parties is quite different from what it was on the appointed day. This fluctuation or movement in development value is often quite considerable and might take place in either direction, from the lessor to the lessee or the other way about, and there is nothing like this in any other field of development.
It would be inequitable if the respective claim holdings were not adjusted to take account of this movement of development value before a payment under Parts I or V of the Act were made. I mention those Parts particularly because, although in the Parts which deal with the future the same factors have to be taken into account, the provisions required for the purpose are much more straightforward because all claim holdings are amalgamated into the unexpended value. It will no longer be the case of dealing with two cakes and cutting off from one and adding to another but there will be only one cake to be divided.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I gather that in that case the same total amount is involved and all that the hon. Gentleman is concerned with is the division between the lessor and lessee?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. and learned Member is quite right—it is an important point—the lump remains exactly the same, but it is the apportionment between the lessor and lessee which is at stake and which concerns the Regulations.
I hope that explanation will enable hon. Members to see more clearly why certain of the more important Regulations are to be made. Their numbers are, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 24 (2). All these Regulations relate to the arrangements I have described. But for the fact that I should be taking up the time of the House, I should like to relate each of these Regulations to the exposition I have given, but I do not think that would be welcomed. The most helpful thing I can do is to mention Regulation 21 and to show how the factors I have been describing are brought into reckoning there.
Regulation 21 provides on a compulsory acquisition for the division between a lessor and lessee under a mining lease of the unexpended balance of established development value. The division is made on a principle already familiar to us from discussions on Part III of the 1954 Act, that is to say, in relation to the proportion of the development value in the land acquired already held by each of the parties to the lease. In calculating those proportions account has to be taken of three factors. I have dealt with two of them—the value of short workings accumulated by the lessee at the time of the acquisition and, secondly, the value of the lessor's right to receive a minimum rent up to the next operation of the break clause.
The third is the value of any profit royalty owned by the lessee. The lessee is said to own a profit royalty if the royalty reserved under the lease is less than the full market royalty. If he is lucky enough to own a profit royalty, he is plainly entitled on that account to be compensated in the event of compulsory acquisition.
The other main theme in Part III of the Regulations centres around a provision made for damage to the value of buildings, plant and machinery resulting from compulsory acquisition of other land held by the same operator. That provision will be found in paragraph (b) of Regulation 23. I have already said that the value of this kind of building is almost entirely related to the availability


of minerals in the vicinity. The inclusion of such buildings and plant in the calculation of Part VI claims under the 1947 Act would have entailed considerable difficulties of valuation and by mutual agreement between the industry and the Central Land Board this value was excluded.
In consequence the unexpended balance attaching to land does not provide a sufficiently large source of compensation for affected minerals and buildings. It is only enough and is only proper to compensate for depreciation of the development value of the minerals themselves. It has therefore been necessary to provide for compensation for injurious affection to such buildings and plant over and above the unexpended value attaching to the injured land and the compensation is not to be drawn from the unexpended balance. The primary object, therefore, of Regulation 23 is to remedy an unforeseen result of the arrangements made under the earlier Regulations under the 1947 Act for the assessment of Part VI claims.
Having stated thus the two main themes underlying the provisions in Part III, perhaps I should end as briefly as possible with a round-up of less important matters contained in the remaining Regulations. Regulations 11 and 12—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that part, I find a little difficulty in following him on this rather complicated point. If the injurious affection of these buildings was not included in the unexpended balance, I do not fallow what is the new consideration that now arises that persuades the Government to introduce it. I do not see the contrast or precisely why it has to be brought in at this stage. One would have thought prima facie that if it had not been brought in in the first place, there would be no justification for bringing it in at this stage.

Mr. Deedes: As the hon. and learned Member is aware, in town and country planning we learn from our progress as we go along. It was borne in upon the Government that there was inequity in the absence of compensation for the injurious affection to buildings, plant and machinery, for the reason that I outlined earlier in my speech. I pointed out then that we regard the value of buildings and plant, particularly the plant of mineral operators, as interdependent with that of

the minerals; in other words, they are inseparable from the minerals; without the plant, the minerals cannot be worked. Therefore, they are one and the same thing. Consequently, it seemed that in equity the compensation for injurious affection should be added, but it cannot come out of the unexpended balance. If any subsequent questions arise, perhaps we can deal with them in a little more detail.
Regulations 11 and 12, which form the commencement of Part III, will be accepted, I think, as self-explanatory. Regulation 13 is necessary because minerals below the ground may have development value independent of that on the surface. For the purposes of the Regulations, the respective claim holdings and unexpended balances are kept separate, because in effect they relate to two quite separate parcels of land.
Regulation 14 provides for an appropriate deduction to be made from the claim holding before the making of a payment under Part I or Part V of the Act if the land which is the subject of the payment has been worked in whole or in part free of development charge. Regulation 19 achieves in the case of the unexpended balance what Regulation 14 achieves in the case of claim holdings.
Regulation 15 adapts in two relatively minor respects Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, which provide for payments to claim holders where a development charge has been incurred by the holder or his predecessor in title. Regulation 20 can be conveniently linked with the first paragraph of Regulation 24. Their effect is simply to ensure that there shall be no duplication of compensation payable by virtue of Regulation 10 of these Regulations and compensation payable under Parts II and V of the 1954 Act.
Next, I come to Regulation 22. Under Section 33 of the Act, protection is given to a prospective purchaser of land. As it stands, this would not benefit the prospective lessee of a mineral lease. In effect, however, due to the payment of minimum rent, and so on, the mineral lessee purchases at least part of the minerals comprised in the lease, and his financial risk is correspondingly increased. All that Regulation 22 does is to extend the protection of Section 33 of the Act to a prospective mineral lessee.
I have already dealt with the other Regulations. I apologise for the time I


have taken, but I think I have covered everything, and certainly the points of substance. I warned the House at the beginning that this was an abstruse subject and that it would take time to give a reasonable explanation. I only hope that those hon. Members who have endured the exposition now find the Regulations a little less abstruse.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the helpful manner in which he has moved the Motion. I take the view, subject to what is said later in the discussion upon the Regulations, that, broadly, they meet fairly well what one understands to be the requirements of the situation. I want to raise three matters upon the Regulations, and I shall be grateful for elucidation of them, They all relate to the points which the Parliamentary Secretary has particularly dealt with in his speech.
There is, first, the effect of Regulation 7 (2), which deals with the compensation to be paid where land is compulsorily acquired and there is attached to the land a planning permission to win and work minerals. As was pointed out, that permission may be given specifically by a local planning authority, or it may be given by the effect of the general development order. In the accompanying Memorandum, with which some of us have been equipped, and in which these Regulations are explained, it is suggested that, by Regulation 7, for the first time planning permission under the general development order is to be treated as a factor in the valuation. I want to raise the question whether that is so. I do not think it is a point of very great substance, but I hope that it may be thought a point of sufficient substance to be worth mentioning.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that Regulation 5 of the 1948 Regulations provided that this element of value existing in a planning permission should be incorporated. He said that that Regulation in 1948 referred to a specific planning permission, and he drew attention, as it seemed to me, to a distinction there was between permission of that kind and permission under the general development order. I stand open to correction in regard to this, but I think it will be found that in Regulation 5 of

the 1948 Regulations there is no reference to specific permission by a local planning authority or by anybody else.
What the 1948 Regulation provides is that this element of value will be taken into account when there is planning permission in force, and I should have thought that the result of that provision in the 1948 Regulation would have been, when the 1950 general development order came along, that that element would have been automatically taken into account. The moment the general development order took effect these provisions of the 1948 Regulation would have applied to it. I therefore suggest that this provision in Regulation 7 is probably, at best, declaratory. I shall be grateful if the matter receives consideration.
Another matter which arises, and which, I think, is of some importance, is under Regulation 10. Regulation 10 of these Regulations has the effect of bringing within the term "abortive expenditure" in Section 79 of the 1947 Act, depreciation of plant and buildings. Abortive expenditure, which has become something of a term of art in this field, has not hitherto been applied to comprise depreciation in this context, so far as I know, and I think that that needs examination, and I invite the House to consider what the consequences of that may be.
One takes the case where plant is installed with the purpose of winning minerals in two adjoining pieces of land and one where—this is a perfectly natural and possible case—permission to win the minerals in one of the two pieces of land has been revoked. The plant and the equipment of the buildings were designed to exploit two adjoining pieces of land and then permission to develop one of them is revoked or refused. As I understand it, in that event the owner of the interest will recover the amount of his expenditure upon the plant which can be attributed to the object of recovering minerals in the piece of land which he cannot now develop. That will be an actuarial calculation which will have to be made. That will be recovered by him as abortive expenditure, and it may well be thought very properly and fairly recovered by him as such.
But how, in that situation, is he entitled to anything more? Such depreciation of the plant in a case of that kind may have


taken place as a result of remunerative employment of the plant on the piece of land to which permission still attaches. It is surely unthinkable that he should be entitled to any payment in respect of any depreciation of that kind. It would be quite wrong for the owner in such a case to be heard to say, "I was going to use the plant for the development of the adjoining land. Now I am not allowed to do so and I can get something back on depreciation." That would be quite wrong if, in fact, depreciation to his plant had been incurred as a consequence of remunerative employment of plant upon the land to which the permission continued to attach.
I should be very glad if the Government felt able to give an assurance that these Regulations do not have the effect of enabling depreciation to be recovered in cases where depreciation is the result of remunerative use of plant and is for all practical purposes not connected with any refusal or revocation of permission. It is true that these cases will go to the Lands Tribunal for determination, but the matter should be made clear in the Regulations.
There is only one other point which I wish to put before the House in connection with these Regulations. I would welcome elucidation of Regulation 15. It is the only point which I desire to raise on Part III of the Regulations. Regulation 15, and particularly Regulation 15 (2), requires further explanation than we have so far received, although it has been touched upon. The Regulation deals with Case A, the case where payment has been made to a claim holder who has paid a development charge or has incurred liability to development charge.
I quite concede that in these Cases A, mineral workings need special treatment and I entirely agree that regulations are necessary to give effect to such special treatment as they receive. I appreciate also that in many cases where the development charge is calculated as a lump sum it will have been calculated on a heavily deferred basis. The owner of an interest, quite fairly and rightly, pays less down in a lump sum than the total which he would have had to pay over a long period of years on a royalty basis.
The expression used in the Memorandum, which has been issued in con-

nection with these Regulations, seems to suggest that the owner who has paid a development charge in a capital sum in the way to which I have referred may be entitled to receive a payment—greater than the amount of the payment he has made. I would be grateful to be told whether that is the intended effect of the Regulations and, if so, what is the explanation of it.
It may well be that I have misconstrued the matter, but the position seems to be open to doubt when we consider the passage in the Memorandum to which I particularly refer, namely, in page 4, where it is stated:
A capital sum assessment would, therefore, fall short of the gross amount of a charge paid by way of royalty and it would be inequitable to limit the Case A payment in such circumstances to the capital sum prescribed.
I would be grateful if these matters could be dealt with. As I say, they are only raised in a context of general agreement with the purpose of the Regulations.

8.52 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I have not much to say in view of the observations which my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has made and the exposition which the Parliamentary Secretary has given. I just want to make one or two general observations. Obviously, these are complicated provisions, and it is extremely important that a memorandum should be available to explain their effect to those who have to work them. What would be particularly valuable would be the general opening exposition of the Parliamentary Secretary linked up with each of these specific Regulations, so that one could see how a particular Regulation fits into the general scheme.
A number of these Regulations, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, consolidate earlier regulations with amendments. It would be a great convenience to those who have to work the superseded regulations to be able to see at a glance the amendments that are made and their effect. So I would suggest that he should consider indicating the text which embodies the amendments together, of course, with something linking his explanation to that text.
That sort of treatment would be useful in all the regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is an extremely complicated Measure, which is very difficult to follow and it is—I do not think I am putting it too high—quite impossible under the Act and the Regulations for the great mass not only of ordinary people., who are entitled to be able to understand the provisions of an Act of Parliament, but even for the experts to understand these provisions. We have reached a stage where compromise upon compromise, has been imposed to such an extent that the provisions are left in a state of utter confusion, and at some time some Government will have to deal drastically with the position.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill said, we are in agreement on the general scheme of these particular Regulations. We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. I could not pay him a more sincere compliment than to say that it was worthy of a lawyer. In the course of his observations the hon. Gentleman covered the main difficulties which have occurred to us.
The two points about which we are particularly troubled are the second two of those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill. As regards the one under Regulation 10, it is the use of the word "depreciation" there which troubles us. One has become accustomed, in connection with plant and machinery, to have that word used as signifying depreciation in value through use, whereas what is contemplated here, as I understand, is not that, but depreciation in value through refusal of permission to mine or work the minerals of an adjoining piece of land. That may be what has been causing us difficulty in dealing with the Regulation. I mention that by way of supplement to what my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it?
I need not labour the second of these two points raised by my hon. Friend, but we should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would deal with those two points and also express his view on the point arising under Regulation 7. Subject to that, we shall not press any objection to these Regulations going through.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I may attempt to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine)? I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). He is quite right, these Regulations are extremely complicated and we are only too anxious to do anything we can to simplify them. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to mean the annotating of the Regulation by the corresponding Regulation?

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Yes.

Mr. Deedes: I will try to find out if that kind of thing is possible for the future. It appears on the last page of the Explanatory Memorandum, but it is difficult to find out which refers to what. The hon. Member for Edge Hill asked three questions. The first two related to Regulations 7 and 10, which embody somewhat the same principle, and the third related to Regulation 15. Sensing that there might be some special interest in Regulations 7 and 10, I made some inquiries as to the extent to which there may be cases affected by them. I am advised that there are very few. I do not want to give a figure, but these Regulations cover a minute field and are more precautionary than anything. However, this field is a complicated one and, as the cases are difficult, they have to be covered.
On Regulation 7, the General Development Order permission would not be brought into account unless it were so provided.
Regulation 5, 1948, refers to a planning permission to win and work minerals and is in force under the Act. We understand that these words would not cover a General Development Order permission. I do not overrate the significance of the Regulation. The hon. Gentleman may well be right in saying that it does not advance anything very new.
However, on the second point relating to Regulation 10, the entitlement to depreciation and how much compensation the operator would receive in respect of his plant, I am advised—I say that advisedly, because these are not matters on which one can answer off one's cuff—


that abortive expenditure here includes depreciation in value from the refusal of specific planning permission which will often reduce the valuable life of the buildings, plant and so on; but it is almost impossible to attribute the loss to abortive expenditure and to relate it to a particular item of expense. If value is lost, the valuer will undoubtedly assess a net loss having regard to the other land with which the plant may be worked.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Is the valuer required to have regard to that fact in any part of the Regulations?

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman is asking me about a specific matter on which I shall probably be unable to put my finger. Regulation 10 is rather a long one to look through in a hurry to find the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
With regard to his final point, the second part of Regulation 15 enables the ceiling of the amount of a claim holding available for the case A payment to be raised. The amount of the case A payment is either the amount of development charge paid or the amount of the available claim holding, whichever is less.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman in an intervention raised a point on Regulation 23. It is necessary now to make sure that compensation can be paid, because there is no provision at all to compensate for such damage in the absence of something on the lines of Regulation 23. The value of buildings and so on was excluded by mutual agreement from the claims because of the complexities of the calculations involved. Section 119 (4) of the 1947 Act, which governed injurious affection in the past was repealed by the 1954 Act. In the case of surface injurious affection, compensation can, of course, properly be obtained from the unexpended balance.
I apologise again for this very complicated matter and hope that my explanation will satisfy the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was Laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SCOTLAND (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT)

9.4 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved.
These Regulations are virtually identical with the English Regulations, which the House has just approved, except for minor modifications to comply with the law of Scotland. That being so, I hope the House will see its way to approve them. The local authority associations have been consulted about the Regulations and they have no objections to offer, and the Regulations have also been discussed with the principal trade associations concerned. Parts I and II are merely redrafting of previous Regulations that were in force and the only additions that arise—these were asked for during previous debates—are in Regulation 6 (2), where there is a small addition, and in Regulation 9 where an additional paragraph has been added.
These additions have been made to rectify things that were not considered to be right in the previous Regulations and which have been found out in the course of experience. Part III is an adaptation and modification of the Act of 1954.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I will not ask the Joint Under-Secretary to give us the same full explanation as did my hon. Friends in the case of the English Regulations. I always feel very sorry for Ministers who have to explain Town and Country Planning Act Regulations and equally sorry for hon. Members who have to try to comprehend them, either before they are discussed, or in the course of their being discussed. However, I might be a little better informed after I have carefully read what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said about the English Regulations.
I am in a particular difficulty over the Scottish Regulations and I wonder


whether the Under-Secretary can help us. He moved the Regulations made on 8th December and laid on the 9th December. We have not yet got the Scottish Regulations in printed form. I know that Regulations have been discussed by the House before now when they were not in printed form, but only in roneoed form.
Our difficulty is that this first copy of the Regulations in roneoed form, which I was able to procure from the Vote Office, contains several insertions, or corrections, in pen and ink. But they are corrections—be it noted—only to give the Scottish Regulations phraseology identical with that of the English Regulations—and this from a Government with Ministers who are always boasting about appointing additional Ministers to give Scotsmen more control over Scottish affairs.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Member will be aware that most of the insertions are in respect of Regulations that were made under previous Acts and are merely repetitions of the previous Regulations. They are not new.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but my difficulty is that when I picked up this copy of the Regulations from the Vote Office I could see that they were signed on the back page by the Secretary of State on 8th December and consented to by two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury on 8th December. I discovered that at least five or six pen and ink alterations are made, but are not initialled. I do not know whether they were made before the Regulations were signed or after.
I go further. At a later date I was able to procure another copy of the (Scotland) Regulations, 1954, in which all these corrections have been made as they were roneoed, so they are not in pen and ink. These Regulations seem to be unaltered in certain respects. There is no date to show when the Regulations were made and no date to show when they are to come into operation.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Have I got it clear—that what my hon. Friend is saying is that on the corrected copy there is no date?

Mr. Fraser: That is the point. I do not know whether or not this is a question for the Chair.
I do not complain that the Regulations are roneoed, but this is a serious matter. On the first copy we have several pen and ink alterations and we do not know whether they were made before or after the Secretary of State signed the Regulations. The other copy which has no alterations does not bear a date saying when the Regulations were made or when they are to come into operation. These matters call for explanation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My copy bears the date 8th January, which has been crossed out, and date 8th December inserted.

Mr. Fraser: The matter seems to be getting worse.
Another point is that it is normal, when the Government make regulations to have them printed and made available for sale through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It is normal for people who may be affected, including the owners of the mineral rights and leases and the local authorities, to be able to get a copy in order to study them and to make representations upon them. It is normal for hon. Members to be enabled to discuss them with persons outside the House who will be affected by the new law. As far as I know, that has not been possible on this occasion.
During the war, when regulations had to be made in a great hurry, because they were necessary for the effective carrying on of the life of the community, we could not possibly allow the normal time for hon. Members to consult authorities outside, but there cannot be all that hurry about these Regulations. I ask the House to say that this is a serious matter. We are asked to approve Regulations made on 8th December and laid on 9th December, yet if Members go to the Vote Office they can get two different roneoed copies which are not printed like the English Regulations.

Mr. John Rankin: Does my hon. Friend think that the Government are in two minds about this?

Mr. Fraser: I do not know what to think, except that Scotland and Scottish Members have been treated badly by Scottish Ministers.

Mr. Rankin: I have been saying that all along.

Mr. Fraser: And it has been right all the time.
This is a discourtesy to Scottish Members and to Scotland. It is unfair to Scottish Members that they should not be given the same facilities as English Members to understand and appreciate the position and to have discussions with persons outside.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government appreciated the complexity and importance of his Regulations. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has truthfully said that the two sets of Regulations are very nearly, but not exactly, identical. All the alterations in phraseology were called far to bring the original Regulations more closely into line with the English Regulations. I protest and ask the Joint Under-Secretary to offer some justification for the way in which the matter has been handled.
I made a good many notes on the Regulations about which I shall ask questions. I listened with great care to the discussion of the English Regulations and I shall not repeat anything that was then said or ask questions about any of the Regulations then discussed. I shall merely ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to justify one of the Regulations about which I have doubt on both sides, both English and Scottish. It is very short, but complicated in appearance, and is Regulation 21. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to explain it.
I protest at the shabby way in which Scotland has been treated by the Scottish Office in the presentation of these Regulations.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and to express, perhaps in less sober and careful language, my own feelings about this matter.

Mr. Rankin: Less sober?

Mr. Ross: Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is a much more temperate sort of fellow. He is probably used to the responsibilities of office. I am not, and I am inclined to be much more outspoken.
We went to the Vote Office to get the Regulations for England and Scotland. We found the English Regulations decently printed. Not only have they been thought out and gone over carefully, but they are dated. Eventually the English Regulations went through. They are marked:
Printed and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1954.
True, the English did not get to the stage of indicating the price.
When we asked for the Scottish Regulations we were handed this strange roneoed document. There is no indication at all on it about coming from the Stationery Office. We are entitled to ask who did this work for the Stationery Office. We see strange marks and signatures but the rest of the thing is roneod. The signatures are in ink and we see
James Stuart, St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, 1. 8th December, 1954.
Again signed in ink are
Edward Heath, R. H. M. Thompson, Two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.
I do not know whether they are supposed to be in Edinburgh at the same time. All these signatures in ink are in the same handwriting. If it was necessary not to make any differentiation, why did the Minister not roneo the actual names? It is a strange document altogether.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a copy of these Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to certain signatures on page 17. I have a page 17 in my copy whereas my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has a copy which is equally valid but has no page 17 and no signatures. How can we go ahead with the discussion of Regulations of this type?

Mr. T. Fraser: Further to that point of order. Before you returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and when I was speaking on these Regulations, I wondered seriously whether this was not a matter for the Chair. I did not press the Deputy-Speaker, because I did not know whether it was fair to do so. I would now ask your guidance. The Regulations we are discussing were made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is said, on 8th


December, and they were available on the 9th.
I obtained a copy soon after the 9th in the Vote Office. They were Regulations, with the name of the Secretary of State added on page 17, but I found that the Regulations were roneoed and not printed as is normal and that several verbal alterations had been made in pen and ink. I do not know whether they were made before or after the Regulations were signed. There were alterations by the deletion of several words by pen and ink drawn through the words. Since then I have got a further copy of the Regulations which has no such alterations made in pen and ink. This, I believe, is the latest revision of the Regulations, but on the face of the Regulations this time there is no date for when the Regulations were made or for when they will come into operation. I am wondering whether it is competent for us to discuss these Regulations in the circumstances.

Commander Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that no date appeared as to when the Regulations were to come into operation. While there may have been an omission at the top of the page, Regulation 1 (1) states:
These Regulations … shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1955.
The reason why these Regulations are laid in this form is quite simple. Hon. Members will remember that the Royal Assent to the Town and Country Planning Act was received on 25th November, and it was necessary that these Regulations should be laid at the earliest possible moment. There was no question of disrespect, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. The question was whether the Regulations would be printed in time so that they came into operation on 1st January, 1955.
It is quite true that in some of the earlier copies the date on which the Regulations were made has not been filled in, but the date 8th December, 1954, of course, appears with the signature of the Secretary of State, and the date of the coming into operation appears in Regulation 1 (1).

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: We are on a point of order. Commander Galbraith.

Commander Galbraith: The Regulation have to come into force on the same date as the Act, so that mineral operators could be treated on a similar basis to other developers and established claim holders. The Regulations, of course, have to be made as soon as possible in order to enable that to be done. Accordingly, they were signed and laid on 9th December in typescript. There would not have been time to wait for printed copies to be obtained. These are the reasons why the Regulations are laid in this form.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I went to the Vote Office, and the copy which I have finishes at page 16—there is no signature of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order. I attended the Vote Office today on two occasions and I received two distinctly different roneo-typed copies of the Regulations we are now supposedly discussing. On the last occasion that I attended the Vote Office, I was with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I can bear out what he said, that on the latest edition of the roneo-typed copy now available in the Vote Office, where the written corrections had been incorporated into the body of the document, there was no date stating when they would come into operation, nor any date when they were laid.
The point I want to put to you is this, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) mentioned it before you came into the Chair. We have dealt tonight with the English Town and Country Planning Regulations and they are in printed form; they have been available throughout England to the public, including those who will be affected by these Regulations. In other words, they have been on sale at Her Majesty's Stationery Office for people to buy and consult.
Hon. Members for English constituencies have been able to meet people in their constituencies who are affected by these Regulations. I claim that we ought to have had the same right in Scotland. I cannot believe that this document has been on sale. In fact, I am sure it has not. There is no indication on it to show where it has been printed. It appears wrong to me that we should proceed with these Regulations while there has been


no opportunity, such as that given, in England, for those affected to purchase copies of the document from the Stationery Office—a document of what is to become the law—and to take matters up with their Members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: It seems regrettable that these Regulations were not printed in the proper form. There may be a good reason for that, but I do not know. If they are available in roneoed form and in a correct form, as apparently they are, I do not see that that would prevent the House from proceeding with the matter. I do not know what is the interpretation of "printing." After all, this is a form of printing. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has given an explanation of how the shortage of time arose. It is, however, entirely a question for the House to decide whether it will pass these Regulations or not.

Mr. T. Fraser: In defence of the fact that these Regulations have been roneoed, the Joint Under-Secretary mentioned the date of the Royal Assent to the Act. I think I am right in stating that the Royal Assent to the English Act was given on the same day. In any case, we discussed the Lords Amendments to both Bills in the House on the same day. I do not think the right, hon. and gallant Gentleman has offered any defence of the fact that the Scottish Regulations are being treated differently from the English Regulations.

Mr. Ross: Before I recommence my speech, may I continue this point of order? You have ruled, by implication, Mr. Speaker, that if a correct roneoed copy had not been available now, it might well be that the discussion would have been out of order. The fact is that until this evening these correct roneoed copies were not available. I have a copy in my hand, the second copy which I have procured in the past few days. I obtained it about an hour ago, and it contains corrections in ink made by someone—I do not know by whom; it might have been by someone in the Vote Office for all I know. Surely it is unfair to expect hon. Members to consider and pass into law Regulations of this character on such a document as this. I submit to you that the discussion ought not to be allowed to continue at this stage.

Mr. Rankin: I hold in my hand two copies of these Regulations. One is the copy belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). One copy is signed, the other copy is unsigned. Like myself, my hon. Friend obtained his copy from the Vote Office. Which Regulation are we discussing—those which I have or those which my hon. Friend has? Can we go ahead with the discussion of Regulations such as those which he possesses, which bear no signature at all?

Miss Margaret Herbison: I obtained this copy from the Vote Office about an hour ago, and it has additions in ink at the side.

Mr. Manuel: Are we back to that again?

Miss Herbison: It has deletions in ink, too. Such copies were being given to hon. Members in the Vote Office about an hour ago. The point I want to put to you and ask for your ruling upon, Mr. Speaker, is that if we look at the various roneoed copies which have been available in the Vote Office we find there is not one which is a complete Statutory Instrument. The one which some of us have has corrections in ink with the date when it was made and the date when it was coming into operation—

Mr. Manuel: But the corrections are not initialled.

Miss Herbison: The one which other hon. Members have has all the corrections put in properly in typing, but that has not the date when it was made or the date when it is to come into operation. Since there does not seem to be a single copy which is a complete copy of what a Statutory Instrument should be, it seems there is not much use our continuing to discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The authentic copy laid before this House when Regulations are made is laid in the Library, and that is the standard by which hon. Members are supposed to direct themselves. The printing has become customary for the convenience of hon. Members, and I am very sorry that it has not been done in this case. There may or may not be good reasons for it, but that does not prevent us going on with them. It may be a reason for voting against the


Regulations, but it does not prevent the House discussing them.

Mr. William Hannan: May I put a point through you, Mr. Speaker, to one of the signatories? I see that one of the hon. Members present is one of the two Lords Commissioners whose signature is attached to this copy. It may very well be, as I know the difficulties about Lords Commissioners speaking in the House, that he cannot give any explanation, but it might be helpful to know whether the signatures were appended to the document before or after the alterations were made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman could offer us any advice on that matter, or whether he is aware of the alterations at all. It may very well be that the hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) may have been asked to sign this document but was not willing to take that responsibility, although he could have signed it.
In the absence of a better explanation, like my hon. Friends I feel that we should take exception to this document which, although it is before us, is not a document in which any of us could have faith. As I understand it, in the insurance or legal world, when changes are made to a document of this character, the alteration has at least to be initialled. There are no such initials here. Therefore we must pursue the matter to get a clearer exposition of the Regulations.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You recollect that I still have the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I do remember that, and I think the House can continue to discuss the Regulations. I understand from the speeches of several hon. Members that there are slight corrections and discrepancies between the different editions of the roneoed script. Am I right about that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If those are not material alterations, it does not matter because the House is quite used to correcting verbally printers' errors and that sort of thing.

Commander Galbraith: I think that if the original copy which was laid is consulted it will be found that all the alterations have been initialled. In addition, before you took the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I did explain that a number of the alterations are concerned with the reprinting of

original Regulations which are repeated here. That can be seen perfectly well by looking at the document.

Mr. Manuel: It is not clear to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I think nothing has been said that induces me to rule that the House cannot proceed with the matter, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has the Floor.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in page 9 of the Regulations, after the word "regulations," there is inserted in handwriting "other than this regulation"? That might be exceedingly important and not merely a typographical error; it might affect the whole of the paragraph.
Furthermore, in page 15, in paragraph (i), line 5,
being land which has an unexpended balance of established development value at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat
has been deleted. As far as I can make out, this might make a substantial difference to that part of the Regulations. It is impossible for any hon. Member to know exactly the purport of the Government in view of this document.

Mr. Speaker: I must say that, if something is deleted, it is deleted. We are told that the document could not be completed in time and that this was the best that could be done. As I have said, I regret it very much, because it is far better to have these things in proper form; but if the House chooses to go on with the Regulations, I cannot stop it.

Mr. Rankin: If I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that because a correct copy is laid in the Library, that is sufficient justification for the House to proceed, assuming the rectitude of the Government's intentions. But is it not the case that Members depend upon the Vote Office to be acquainted with Government proposals? Time and again we are told that a Government paper or Bill will be available in the Vote Office at a certain hour; we are not told that it will be in the Library.
One copy is in the Library. Has that copy to be used by all Members? We should get individual copies at the Vote


Office. We are placed at a considerable disadvantage in discussing regulations which have been laid in this fashion when there are verbal differences in the contents which, so far as we know, may declare different intentions on the part of the Government. We are entitled to ask the Government to proceed no further with these Regulations tonight.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Government to do that, but from my point of view the Regulations have been laid before the House properly, and the House can go on with them if it likes. That is all I can say.

Mr. T. Fraser: In the circumstances, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
It must have been clear to every Member in the House that the House is not in a position to proceed to discuss these Regulations. There are too many different copies of them. There is, at least, a shadow of doubt as to whether we have the right and the authority to debate them. It is normal practice for regulations, when made by Her Majesty's Ministers, to be printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and made available for sale to the public. That has not been done on this occasion; copies are not on sale and have not been made available to the public.
I ask the House to adjourn the debate. The Joint Under-Secretary has paid attention to all that has been said—in no spirit of acrimony; we have been discussing these matters in a reasonable frame of mind. I ask him to say that he is willing now to withdraw the Regulations. I cannot believe that any great harm would come to the mineral developers if the Act should come into operation on 1st January and the Regulations should come into operation at some date a few weeks later.

Miss Herbison: Before we have an answer, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in proposing that the debate be adjourned. When I raised a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, you said that we could get copies of the document in the Vote Office and that the main copy was the one in the Library. I went immediately to the Library. I discovered what I did not

know before, that one has to go to one of the librarians who has to open a locked cupboard to get out the Statutory Instrument. It seems to me strange that 71 Scottish Members, besides the English Members who may want to compare the English and the Scottish Regulations, should have to queue up in the Library and get the librarian to open a locked cupboard to get out the document. That seems to me strange, if it is the practice of the House to rely on a copy in the Library.
I read the copy in the Library and compared it with the one I got in the Vote Office. I discovered that the insertions in the one I have and that are in ink are not in the copy in the Library. If the copy in the Library is the important copy, it seems to me we ought not to be discussing these Regulations any further tonight; or at least until we are sure we have in the Library the correct copy. I would ask you to rule accordingly.

9.42 p.m.

Sir William Darling: It seems to me a pity that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who, I understand, had the Floor—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member cannot have been paying his usual attention to the proceedings. We are now on an entirely different Question.

Sir W. Darling: I am well aware of that.
I was reflecting that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who had the Floor of the House, was, by a series of points of order, prevented from making what I am sure would have been an interesting and illuminating speech, when the excessive haste and anxiety of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) induced him to move that the debate be adjourned. I was reflecting that I had been prevented from having heard a speech which, I am sure, would have been illuminating and entertaining.
I think that my fellow countrymen are being unusually pernickety tonight on what is relatively an unimportant matter. I am not at all clear and I have not heard from you, Sir, or from anybody taking part in the debate that it is a Standing Order that Statutory Instruments or, indeed, Bills must be printed.

Mr. Manuel: They should be correct.

Sir W. Darling: I am not discussing correctness, but printing.
The gravamen of the attack on my right hon. and gallant Friend is that this document is not printed. I think it is desirable that it should be printed. I am as much an admirer of William Caxton as any other hon. Member here, but printing is not a sine qua non. It is not apparently necessary, according to the Standing Orders of the House. What is important is that Statutory Instruments should be laid, and there is no doubt—I am reinforced here by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), whose investigation bears out what I understood to be the case—that the Regulations have been laid and very carefully laid; laid to such an extent, as the hon. Lady has discovered after many years in the House, that they are not only laid but laid away in a glass case only to be opened by one of the principal Librarians.
So, whatever apparent slackness on the part of the Government may be urged by the Opposition, no one will deny that they have carefully laid these Regulations, and I call in support of my contention the hon. Lady and also the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is being so pernickety and so desirous of having everything right. However, it is important for him and all of us to have in our minds that Statutory Instruments need not be printed as long as they are laid.
As a Scotsman I see here an instance of a very desirable public economy. I notice that, with a generous Christmas spirit, the English Regulations are not priced. The last page of the Regulations bears the words "Price d. net."

Mr. Rankin: They are priceless.

Sir W. Darling: I commend this economy and the expedition of my right hon. Friends. If it is desired by the Government and it is in the public interest that we should have these Regulations for England, why should Scotland toddle behind? Is it the desire of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North to show that we are always behind the English? Even with a roneoed copy, the English with characteristic adaptability

have got together two Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in order to dispose of Scottish business.
My right hon. Friend signed the document which we have had roneoed and now the only thing that prevents our having the Regulations approved is this rather pernickety feminine fastidiousness of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North and her too simple followers. I hope that we shall proceed with all possible speed and have these Regulations approved before Big Ben chimes ten o'clock.

Miss Herbison: Which Regulations?

Sir W. Darling: Those which have been laid, and if the hon. Lady would like them read I will go into a corner with her and read them to her privately. We should proceed forthwith and have the Regulations approved by ten o'clock.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: In supporting the Motion which is before the House, I should like to take this matter a little further. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has based his case on the printing of the Regulations, but I want to put before the House what is apparent to all of us on this side. It is that the copy of the Regulations which has been laid in the Library is a copy which is devoid of the insertions which the Minister is trying to get passed by the House tonight. That is the main point.
It is most unbecoming for Scottish Tory Members to be agreeing that the procedure which has been adopted by their Front Bench is proper. They should agree with us that the Regulations have not been properly laid and that our constituents in Scotland have a right to be able to go to the Stationery Office and procure a copy in the same way as constituents in England have a right to do.
Why should Scottish constituents who are interested in the mineral workings and development charges and the rest which arise from these Regulations not have that right? Is there any hon. Member opposite who dares to say that they should not have the right and that they should be fobbed off with three editions of roneoed copies, not one of which is alike? If the Regulations have been


properly laid in the Library we must accept that the matter can be placed before the House and debated but, with respect, after examining the insertion on page 5 of the Regulations I maintain that the Minister is trying to have passed by the House something which is missing from the copy which has been laid in the Library. On that ground I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and submit that it would be utterly wrong for the House to proceed in the circumstances. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is leaving the Chamber—

Sir W. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member sought to confuse the issue by discussing in an irrelevant way the question of laying these Regulations. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that the object of laying the Regulations is to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing and studying them. The facts here show that hon. Members of this House have not had access to the Regulations in the true sense, for a variety of reasons.
One reason was that there was one copy of the Regulations in the Vote Office and a different copy in the Library. There were two copies of the one in the Library. I am arguing that the object of laying Regulations is to give hon. Members access to them so that they can consider and study them with a view to putting their views before the House. Hon. Members have not had that opportunity, because there were three sets of Regulations. There was one set containing certain matter in the Vote Office and another set which purported to be the same, but were different in their content, in the Library. Even those in the Library were inaccurate—they differed from those in the Vote Office; so how, therefore, could hon. Members know which were the right Regulations to rely upon?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. If the hon. and learned Member will forgive me, I am trying to hasten this matter and I have now sent for and obtained the copy laid in the Library. I think it was the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who made the point that something had been inserted in page 5. If he will show me his copy and let me compare it with the one in the Library—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How are we to consult the copy in the Library if you have it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do so now.

Mr. Hughes: If we cannot consult the copy in the Library, how can this debate be in order?

Mr. Speaker: I now have the copy from the Library.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you propose to examine each of these copies individually? Obviously—it is all very well for the Leader of the House to frown and look annoyed about this, but the fact is that each of these Regulations—or what purport to be the Regulations—have been altered by someone in pen and ink. If you, Mr. Speaker, wish to check that we are all discussing the same thing—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I have now put myself in possession of the facts of this case, and I see that in the copy on which the House has been working there is, at the top of page 5, an insertion in ink which, I understand, is material to the Regulations. I do not find that in the copy laid in the Library. Therefore, I rule that there is a material difference in the Regulations and that the Regulations must be re-laid.

Mr. T. Fraser: In view of what you have just ruled, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

It appearing that the copy of the Regulations laid before the House was incorrect, Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Question thereon could not be put.

LACE INDUSTRY

Draft Lace Furnishings Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1954 [copy presented 15th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Draft Lace Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order 1954 [copy presented 15th November, 1954, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE, CANVEY ISLAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kaberry.]

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Despite the excitement and uncertainties of the last few moments, the House has spent a constructive and useful day discussing needs and assistance. Tonight I want to fix attention upon the needs of a particular group of my constituents and to implore the Minister's assistance. It was in February, 1953, that Canvey Island, which I have the honour to represent, was swept into the new by the East Coast flood disaster. No other part of the country suffered such grievous loss. The whole island was inundated. AH but a handful of the population were evacuated. The casualty list was long.
At that time Canvey Island had and has today only one link with the mainland, a ramshackle swing bridge which was installed some years ago when the island's population was but a fraction of what it is now. The bridge is a constant source of anxiety to the road engineers responsible for looking after it. It has to be inspected weekly and must now be nearing the end of its useful life. If it had collapsed under the strain of the flood evacuation—and let me say that at the time there were many who were fearful on that score—then the casualty list would have been much heavier as speedy evacuation would have been impossible and the bulk of the casualties were people who suffered from exposure.
The case for a new high level bridge spanning both the railway which runs along the mainland and the narrow waterway which separates Canvey Island from

the mainland is unanswerable. I do not propose to go into any detail on the subject, because my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be familiar with the representations that I made to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in the late Labour Government as long ago as July, 1951. Broadly, the case is as follows.
Canvey Island has a population of over 11,000 people. Most of the people go to work on the mainland, travelling out and back daily. There are also important oil installations. There is no railway, and the sole link of the island community with the mainland is by means of a road over a swing bridge and a level-crossing on the mainland which is closed frequently during the working day.
As a consequence, the island's economic life and its development potential is throttled by traffic congestion. It has been established that during a normal working day, from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m., the level-crossing gates are closed for about 40 per cent, of the time. During the morning peak hours the gates are closed for 60 per cent. of the time, and during the evening peak hours for as much as 69 per cent. of the time. It is impossible in the short space of time at my disposal and in this atmosphere to convey very much of what this means to my constituents.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Mr. Braine: But it is obvious that very great inconvenience is caused both to residents on the island and to the large number of visitors who go there, particularly during the summer months, because Canvey Island enjoys a growing reputation as a holiday resort.
Secondly, very considerable delay is caused to commercial vehicles and public transport. I am advised that the elimination of the level-crossing gates and the introduction of a high-level bridge would reduce operating costs by many thousands of pounds a year.
Thirdly—this is a very important point, particularly bearing in mind the past history of Canvey Island—effective mutual aid in respect of fire and ambulance services cannot be implemented


under present conditions. On a number of occasions ambulances have been held up at the level-crossing for 10 or 15 minutes or more, a delay which can make the difference between life and death.
Lastly, the floods last year gave the authorities a dreadful warning. I doubt very much whether the present bridge, which stood up to the strain very gallantly then, would withstand another great tidal surge sweeping down the Thames Estuary.
Everybody knows that the position is intolerable. Successive Ministers of Transport have admitted that it is unsatisfactory; the Essex County Council has admitted that it is unsatisfactory; and the local authorities admit that it is unsatisfactory.
In August, 1951, the right hon. Member for East Ham, South, then Minister of Transport, wrote to me saying that while he agreed that some improvement such as a high-level bridge was highly desirable, both to eliminate the level-crossing and the opening bridge over Benfleet Creek, as well as improve the road, the restricted funds available to him made it impossible to approve any road schemes at all other than those which were necessary to preserve essential communications.
The matter was again raised with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), the Minister of Transport in the following year. On 11th December, 1952, a body of ratepayers of Canvey Island who had raised the matter separately with the Ministry, were informed:
The Minister agrees that an improvement of this nature is highly desirable, both to eliminate the level crossing and the opening bridge over Benfleet Creek, as well as to improve the road, but apart from certain works which are indispensable to the progress of the new towns or the reconstruction of blitzed cities, the restricted funds at his disposal makes it impossible for him to approve any major improvement schemes at all, however desirable they may be on general grounds, other than those specially designed to promote road safety.
That was in 1952.
At the end of January, 1953, came the floods. It was only by a miracle, as this House well knows, that Canvey Island was saved. Momentarily every one was jolted into awareness of the precarious nature of the island's communications

with the mainland. By the autumn the Highways Committee of the Essex County Council had placed the high-level bridge project second in the order of priority among the county's major road works. There was no doubt about it, because I have been told so by the county council, that what had happened during the floods played a large part in determining that priority.
My constituents and I find it exceedingly strange that, having decided that this bridge should be regarded as the second highest priority in the county, it should then be placed in the second five-year development plan. Why should that be? I wrote to the county council and got this answer on 11th December, 1953:
… the Canvey Island scheme was not included in the first five-year period, as it was felt by the Highways Committee that, in view of the restrictions which had been, and were still being, imposed as a matter of Government policy on expenditure in connection with the maintenance and improvement of highways, it was most unlikely that it would be possible for work on a scheme of this magnitude to be commenced during that period. The scheme was therefore included in the plan as one of those to be commenced during the succeeding 15-year period.
That is fair enough. But it is not only because the economic circumstances of the country have altered so dramatically since that letter was written that I am making this plea tonight.
I have discovered that, despite the high priority which the Essex County Council gives to this project, no attempt has yet been made by that authority to design a bridge or to prepare a detailed statement of cost. Before the war—the matter has been on the stocks for a long time—such a project would have cost about £100,000. Today estimates vary from £500,000 to £600,000. In one of the letters that I have had from the Ministry the figure of £650,000 is mentioned. Nobody really has a clue as to what the project would cost.
In short, the matter has been handled with such a lack of vigour that, even if approval in principle were forthcoming, it could not be given, because nobody would know what the project was going to cost. To be quite fair to the Essex County Council, there are certain difficulties. The first is that the Port of London Authority, which has jurisdiction over the narrow waterway which divides the island from the mainland, has refused to reduce the headroom that is


required above highwater level. As a consequence, a possible saving by the county council of £200,000 or more on the total cost of the bridge cannot be effected.
It seems, too, that after months of negotiation and dilly-dallying, nobody yet has a clear idea as to whether the bridge should be where it is generally supposed to run—where the present bridge runs across Benfleet Creek—or whether, as the Port of London Authority suggests, it should run some 1,500 yards to the west.
The reasons for the Port of London Authority's attitude on this subject are not at all clear. The Authority has not taken the public into its confidence, and nobody has been able to find out why it insists on maintaining headroom, because the waterway is not used by commercial traffic but by small pleasure boats.
The second difficulty is that the county council, assuming it has a clear idea as to where the site is to be, says that to prepare plans would take 18 months and would involve considerable expense. It is not prepared to put its staff to work and to incur such expense without some promise of assistance from the Minister of Transport.
Here lies a dilemma. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, quite clearly, is not likely to authorise a grant unless a specific scheme is forthcoming. On the other hand, the Essex County Council will not prepare a specific scheme unless it has an assurance of financial support. So we have an impasse. In the meantime, my constituents are affected adversely. The development of the island is retarded.
I am told that there are proposals to import a considerable population under the Town Development Act. Presumably if that is done then industry must move in as well. Let us get the priorities right. It would be the height of folly to add to the population of Canvey Island before the high level bridge is provided. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will take due note of that.
But then this is all the more reason why a decision on the provision of such a bridge should be speeded. My abject

in raising the matter tonight, therefore, is to urge my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to resolve this dilemma. Either funds are to be made available for the project, or they are not. If they are not, then let us be told. Then we shall know precisely where we stand and we can plan accordingly. Either the bridge is a high priority, as the Essex County Council say it is, or it is not. Either lip service is being paid to Canvey's claims or the county council genuinely believe that the bridge should be provided at the earliest possible opportunity. If the latter, why the delay?
Let us get the facts clear. What my constituents want to know is how the matter stands. It has hung fire long enough. If my hon. Friend considers that a grant would be forthcoming eventually—I do not say at present although the economic climate is improving rapidly—then surely some arrangement can be made now whereby the county council can get on with the job of deciding upon a specific scheme and getting out estimates of costs. I beg my hon. Friend to use his good offices to end the deadlock and to persuade the Essex County Council to get on with the job of planning the bridge. If my constituents can be given that assurance tonight they will be content.

10.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has not unnaturally raised this question tonight because he and his constituents are much concerned about the communications between Canvey Island and the mainland. However, it does not necessarily follow that, because there is some problem involving communications, the Minister of Transport is the appropriate authority to deal with it. It was because my hon. Friend was under the impression that there was a deadlock that he thought it right to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight.
My information is that discussions are taking place between the Essex County Council, as the highway authority, and the Port of London Authority, which is concerned about the head room provided by any new bridge. I think that my hon.


Friend is labouring under a misapprehension. These are difficult matters and these two important authorities are naturally considering the position and discussing it with each other, and the engineering experts are looking at each others arguments; but certainly so far as my information is concerned there is no deadlock and we in the Ministry of Transport hope that the discussions which are taking place will result in a satisfactory agreement being reached between the Essex County Council and the Port of London Authority.
This is an essential first step. The road and bridge come under the heading of a classified road. As such, the authority responsible for the building of them is the Essex County Council. My right hon. Friend is directly responsible only for trunk roads. Therefore he is not directly responsible in this case. If and when an agreement is reached and a satisfactory proposal made, then as soon as we can afford it we shall provide an appropriate grant for the building of the bridge and the necessary approaches to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay is very familiar with the line which has provisionally been drawn and which is intended to be close to where the bridge is at the present time. As far as we can make out, it seems likely that rather a different line will be taken on the mainland if the new bridge is constructed.
All these matters are the responsibility of the local highway authority and it is difficult for me to say anything about them. If, unfortunately, these two authorities were unable to reach an agreement—and I have no reason to suppose that that will happen—my right hon. Friend, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, might be called upon, under Section 34 of the Coast Protection Act, 1949, to decide one way or the other. Obviously it would be entirely wrong for me to give any indication of the views of the Department if it might be called upon to give a ruling in a quasi-judicial capacity. Indeed, I am quite unable to do so because the Department has been at pains to keep clear of this matter precisely because of this possibility. We hope, therefore, that the two bodies responsible will pursue their discussions and that they will, in the near future, arrive at a satisfactory agreement and decide where the

bridge ought to be built and what the headroom should be over the creek.
I should not like to leave my hon. Friend without some indication of what our attitude will be if and when that agreement is come to. There is not the slightest doubt, as he said, that if Canvey Island is to be developed, and if indeed the residents and the industries already there are to have a satisfactory communication with the mainland, it is important that a new and better bridge and road should be constructed. In due course, we hope that that will be done, and we shall, of course, pay the grant appropriate for a Class II road.
At the same time, I ought to tell my hon. Friend that, in spite of the great increase in the amount of money which has been made available by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—as was indicated by the Foreign Secretary in his speech in the debate on the Address—there are a number of other roads which would be likely to have priority over this one. The principle upon which grants are made for classified roads is their value as arteries of through-traffic. That, of course, is one of the disadvantages under which any island must necessarily labour, and so I cannot possibly hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that this particular bridge and road will be at the very head of the queue. At the same time, we are familiar with the needs of Canvey Island. My hon. Friend has once more explained those needs and has expressed them in a very forceful and cogent way. I look forward to the time when a new bridge and road will be constructed and when the appropriate grant will be made from the Road Fund.

Mr. Braine: While thanking my hon. Friend very much for what he has said, may I ask him whether he is seized of the point that I made, namely, that even if full agreement is reached between the Port of London Authority and the Essex County Council, the Essex County Council have made it clear that they will not proceed with the preparation of detailed plans without some assurance of financial aid from the Ministry? Though I do not expect my hon. Friend to commit himself on that point, would he be prepared to make some comment on it before he concludes?

Mr. Molson: Yes, indeed, I will gladly do so. If and when an agreement is


arrived at between the two authorities, and after discussion with the Ministry of Transport, we should then think that it was reasonable and proper for the Essex County Council to begin to make the necessary preparations for the construction of the road. We attach the greatest importance to plans being prepared long in advance of the time when authority is given to begin the work. In point of fact, owing to the special problems connected with the sea, the creek, the tide, the mud and so on, I understand from our technical advisers that this will require very careful investigation before it is decided exactly how the bridge is to be sustained. Therefore, it would be entirely appropriate for the Essex County Council to begin to make these necessary preliminary preparations some time

before it is possible to fit it actually into the programme for the year. As regards the designing of the bridge, it might be better for it not to be designed in advance because of the very rapid technical progress which is being made at present in the building of bridges.
I hope that what I have now added will give my hon. Friend the feeling that although I cannot indicate that anything can be done at present we confidently expect that this will be undertaken in due course, and we are anxious that ail necessary preliminaries should be undertaken as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.